posting-review-summary

name	posting-review-summary
description	Use this skill when posting the final summary comment after all inline comments are posted. Apply as the LAST step of code review after all findings are classified and inline comments are complete. Detects context (agent mode sticky comment, GitHub Actions MCP tool, or local file) and routes output accordingly.

Posting Review Summary

Context Detection

Check contexts in this order — use the first match:

Context	How to Detect	Action
Agent Mode	Sticky comment context provided in prompt (comment ID + <!-- bitwarden-code-review --> marker)	Write summary to /tmp/review-summary.md
GitHub Actions (tag mode)	mcp__github_comment__update_claude_comment available AND no sticky comment context	Update sticky comment via MCP tool
Local review	Neither agent mode context nor MCP tool available	Write to review-summary.md in working directory

FORBIDDEN: Do not use gh pr comment to create summary comments.

PR Metadata Assessment

If PR title, description, or test plan is genuinely deficient, add as a finding in the Code Review Details collapsible section.

Rules

• DO NOT comment on minor improvements
• DO NOT comment on adequate-but-imperfect metadata
• NEVER add as an inline comment
• DO NOT exceed 3 lines of feedback on the PR Metadata Assessment

Examples

Genuinely deficient means:

• Title is literally "fix bug", "update", "changes", or single word
• Description is empty or just "See Jira"
• UI changes with zero screenshots
• No test plan AND changes are testable

Adequate (DO NOT flag):

• Title describes the change even if imperfect: "Fix login issue for SSO users"
• Description exists and explains the change, even briefly
• Test plan references Jira task with testing details

Format

- ❓ **QUESTION**: PR title could be more specific
  - Suggested: "Fix null check in UserService.getProfile"

Summary Format

## 🤖 Bitwarden Claude Code Review

**Overall Assessment:** APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES

[Up to 4 neutral sentences describing what was reviewed]

[Optional **Not covered:** line - only when a review step the diff called for did not run and nothing else in this review covered its ground]

<details>
<summary>Code Review Details</summary>

[Findings grouped by severity - see ordering below]

[Optional PR Metadata Assessment - only for truly deficient metadata]

</details>

Not Covered

A coverage note is not a finding: it has no file:line to cite and it says what was not reviewed, which is the opposite of the assessment sentences above it. So it gets its own line, outside the <details> block, where an approval cannot bury it.

Render it when a review step the diff called for did not run and nothing else in this review covered its ground — this path cannot reach that reviewer at all, or the reviewer errored or returned nothing usable. An optional enrichment skill that was merely unavailable does not qualify: those fall back to your existing review knowledge, so the ground was still covered. Name the files that went unreviewed, why, and which other path covers them. Give the reason that actually applies on your path — do not assert an install state you cannot check, and do not point at a remedy the stated reason would also block.

Example, the bitwarden-code-reviewer path, where Task is unavailable so plugin-dev:skill-reviewer cannot be launched whatever is installed:

**Not covered:** Skill review did not run — this review path cannot launch
`plugin-dev:skill-reviewer`, so `plugins/example/skills/doing-a-thing/SKILL.md` was not checked
for description quality, length, or progressive disclosure.
`performing-multi-agent-code-review` covers them where `plugin-dev` is installed.

Omit the line entirely when every review step the diff called for ran. An approval that hides what went unreviewed reads as a pass on it.

Dependency Changes Table

When the PR diff includes dependency manifest file changes, add a Dependency Changes subsection inside the <details> block, after the findings list and before the optional PR Metadata Assessment.

Only render this table when there are meaningful version changes — not for lock file-only churn with no manifest changes.

### Dependency Changes

| Package           | Change                | Ecosystem |
| ----------------- | --------------------- | --------- |
| `@foo/bar`        | New (1.2.0)           | npm       |
| `lodash`          | 3.x → 4.x (**major**) | npm       |
| `Newtonsoft.Json` | 13.0.1 → 13.0.3       | NuGet     |
| `old-package`     | Removed               | npm       |

Bold the word "major" for major version bumps. Mark new additions as "New (version)" and removals as "Removed".

Findings in Details Section

Ordering: Group findings by severity in this exact order:

1. ❌ : CRITICAL
2. ⚠️ : IMPORTANT
3. ♻️ : DEBT
4. 🎨 : SUGGESTED
5. ❓ : QUESTION

Omit empty categories entirely.

Format per finding:

- [emoji]: [One-line description]
  - `filename.ts:42`

Example:

<details>
<summary>Code Review Details</summary>

- ❌ : SQL injection in user query builder
  - `src/auth/queries.ts:87`
- ⚠️ : Missing null check on optional config
  - `src/config/loader.ts:23`

</details>

Output Execution

Agent Mode (Sticky Comment)

When sticky comment context is provided in the prompt (comment ID + marker):

1. Write the summary to /tmp/review-summary.md using the Write tool
2. Append \n\n<!-- bitwarden-code-review --> at the end of the file content
3. Do NOT use mcp__github_comment__update_claude_comment
4. Do NOT use gh pr comment or gh api

The workflow post-step will read this file and update the placeholder comment automatically.

GitHub Actions (Tag Mode)

Use mcp__github_comment__update_claude_comment to update the sticky comment with the summary.

Local

Write summary to review-summary.md in working directory.