// Write warm, direct collaboration comments. Trigger: PR feedback, issue replies, reviews, Slack messages, or GitHub comments.
Trigger: judgment day, dual review, adversarial review, juzgar. Run blind dual review, fix confirmed issues, then re-judge.
Shared SDD references for installed skills. Not invokable.
Archive a completed SDD change by syncing delta specs. Trigger: orchestrator launches archive after implementation and verification.
Create the SDD technical design and architecture approach. Trigger: orchestrator launches design for a change.
Explore SDD ideas before committing to a change. Trigger: orchestrator launches exploration or requirement clarification.
Trigger: sdd init, iniciar sdd, openspec init. Initialize SDD context, testing capabilities, registry, and persistence.
| name | comment-writer |
| description | Write warm, direct collaboration comments. Trigger: PR feedback, issue replies, reviews, Slack messages, or GitHub comments. |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| metadata | {"author":"gentleman-programming","version":"1.0"} |
Load this skill whenever you write a comment that another human will read.
Use it for:
| Rule | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Be useful fast | Start with the actionable point. Do not recap the whole PR before feedback. |
| Be warm and direct | Sound like a thoughtful teammate, not a corporate bot. |
| Keep it short | Prefer 1 to 3 short paragraphs or a tight bullet list. |
| Explain why | Give the technical reason when asking for a change. |
| Avoid pile-ons | Comment on the highest-value issue, not every tiny preference. |
| Match thread language | Write in the same language the thread uses. For regional tone and style, defer to the active persona — do not inject regional expressions (e.g. voseo) on your own. |
| No em dashes | Use commas, periods, or parentheses instead. |
<Direct observation or request>
<Why it matters, only if needed>
<Concrete next action>
Good approach overall. I'd split this into a separate commit because it mixes validation logic with UI wiring.
That keeps the reviewer's focus narrower and makes rollback cleaner if the integration fails.
Approved. The scope is clear and the change is well-contained.
For the next PR, add links to the previous and following PRs so the chain stays navigable.
This PR exceeds the 400-line budget, so we need to split it or justify `size:exception`.
Suggested order: foundation + tests first, then integration, then docs. That gives each review a clear start and end.
# Inspect a PR before writing review feedback
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json title,body,additions,deletions,changedFiles