agentleFS
Sign inStart free
Dafenxz0Dafenxz0/codex-maintainer-skills/review-pr-risk/SKILL.md

review-pr-risk

Skill2 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Review pull requests like an open-source maintainer. Use when Codex is asked to inspect PR diffs, branches, patches, or proposed changes and report behavioral regressions, API compatibility risks, security concerns, missing tests, release impact, documentation gaps, and merge readiness.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. cobusgreyling/grok-bot-templates★ 14same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository2 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈8

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read nearby tests, docs, changelog, package metadata, and call sites before judging risk.

    line 11
  2. Very specific:

    Read references/risk-rubric.md when assigning severity or merge readiness.

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    Verify whether tests cover the changed behavior.

    line 14
  4. Distinctive:

    Prefer specific file and line references when available.

    line 19
  5. Distinctive:

    Avoid blocking on cosmetic issues unless they obscure correctness or maintainability.

    line 20
  6. Distinctive:

    Call out compatibility risk for public APIs, config formats, CLIs, serialized data, database migrations, and dependency constraints.

    line 21
  7. Distinctive:

    Treat security, auth, permissions, secret handling, path traversal, injection, and unsafe deserialization as high-scrutiny areas.

    line 22
  8. Distinctive:

    If the PR is low risk, say so clearly and identify the remaining verification gap.

    line 23
  9. Distinctive:

    Use this shape unless the user asks for inline comments:

    line 27

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Review PR Risk

Workflow

  1. Inspect the changed files and infer the public surface affected by the PR.
  2. Read nearby tests, docs, changelog, package metadata, and call sites before judging risk.
  3. Read references/risk-rubric.md when assigning severity or merge readiness.
  4. Prioritize concrete bugs over style preferences.
  5. Verify whether tests cover the changed behavior; run focused tests when feasible.
  6. Produce findings first, then open questions, then a merge recommendation.

Review Posture

  • Prefer specific file and line references when available.
  • Avoid blocking on cosmetic issues unless they obscure correctness or maintainability.
  • Call out compatibility risk for public APIs, config formats, CLIs, serialized data, database migrations, and dependency constraints.
  • Treat security, auth, permissions, secret handling, path traversal, injection, and unsafe deserialization as high-scrutiny areas.
  • If the PR is low risk, say so clearly and identify the remaining verification gap.

Output

Use this shape unless the user asks for inline comments:

Findings:

Open questions:

Test coverage:

Release impact:

Merge recommendation:

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free