菜单
Review code changes in this Terraform provider repository. Use when asked to review, self-review, check a diff, review a PR, or assess changes to Go provider code, Terraform docs, examples, generation, release scripts, or CI for terraform-provider-ona.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/gitpod-io/terraform-provider-ona --skill review命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | review |
| description | Review code changes in this Terraform provider repository. Use when asked to review, self-review, check a diff, review a PR, or assess changes to Go provider code, Terraform docs, examples, generation, release scripts, or CI for terraform-provider-ona. |
Review for bugs, regressions, missing tests, and provider-state mistakes. Suppress nitpicks unless they hide a real risk.
Review the local diff against the merge-base with main:
git fetch origin main
BASE=$(git merge-base origin/main HEAD)
git diff "$BASE" --name-only
git diff "$BASE"
Diff against the merge-base, not origin/main directly, so unrelated changes on main do not appear as phantom removals.
Read the PR description, changed files, and diff using the available SCM tools. Post inline comments only for concrete findings tied to changed lines.
internal/provider/**.internal/client/**.tools/**, GNUmakefile, generated docs/**.internal/api/go/**.docs/**, examples/**, README.md, dev/local-devloop/README.md.scripts/**, docs/release.md.make generate output and a clean git diff --exit-code when relevant.internal/api/go/** for style-only issues; copied API changes must come from an intentional sync.Classify findings by severity:
Write each finding's comment text as a Conventional Comment: <label> [decorations]: <subject>. Keep severity and file location as metadata before the comment, not inside the Conventional Comment itself. Add a short follow-up sentence only when the impact or fix is not obvious from the subject.
issue (blocking) and must say the fix must be done.suggestion (should) and must say the improvement should be done.nitpick (could) and must say the style or idiom adjustment could be done.Use this format:
Findings:
- [P0] file:line
issue (blocking): <fix> must be done because <behavior is broken or acceptance criteria are unmet>.
- [P1] file:line
suggestion (should): <improvement> should be done to improve <readability, maintainability, or performance>.
- [P2] file:line
nitpick (could): <style or idiom adjustment> could be done to match <repo, language, library, or framework convention>.
Open questions:
- ...
Summary:
- ...
If there are no findings, say so clearly and mention any residual test or acceptance-test gap.
A review is done when the changed files have been checked against the relevant provider, docs, generation, or tooling risks; findings are severity-ranked with file/line references; and any skipped generated or credentialed areas are named.