pr-code-review
Skill6 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub
Dual-axis (Standards∥Spec) multi-perspective PR review with confidence ≥80 filtering, severity calibration, plan alignment, and optional GitHub/GitLab review comment. Best-of: Claude /code-review pipeline + mattpocock dual-axis + Superpowers plan/severity habits. Triggers — 「PR 代码审查」「审查这个 PR」「code-review」「/code-review」「审 PR」「pull request review」「双轴审查 PR」 / pr code review, review this PR. Do NOT use as a name alias for mattpocock code-review or Superpowers requesting-code-review.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- programmerraja/claude-code-toolboxtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- countzero/switch_claude_accounttheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- andrewthetechie/andrew-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 20, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- countzero/switch_claude_account★ 9same name
- andrewthetechie/andrew-skills★ 6same name
- programmerraja/claude-code-toolbox★ 1same 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 repository79 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- openspec-apply-changeSkill
- openspec-archive-changeSkill
- openspec-bulk-archive-changeSkill
- openspec-continue-changeSkill
- openspec-exploreSkill
- openspec-ff-changeSkill
- openspec-new-changeSkill
- openspec-onboardSkill
- openspec-sync-specsSkill
- openspec-verify-changeSkill
- ai-proxy-disciplineSkill
- analysis-coreSkill
- android-webview-debugSkill
- article-writerSkill
- astrill-controlSkill
- brainstorm-workflowSkill
- browser-debug-toolkitSkill
- clarifying-question-disciplineSkill
- code-design-reviewSkill
- competitive-researchSkill
- completion-evidence-disciplineSkill
- context-budget-disciplineSkill
- decision-fog-disciplineSkill
- delivery-disciplineSkill
- design-approval-gateSkill
- domain-language-disciplineSkill
- effective-web-researchSkill
- essence-diagnosisSkill
- evolution-reviewSkill
- explain-clearlySkill
- feature-branch-closeoutSkill
- figma-pixel-implementSkill
- figma-pixel-verifySkill
- git-branch-protectSkill
- git-commitSkill
- git-conflict-resolveSkill
- git-release-finishSkill
- git-release-startSkill
- git-worktree-disciplineSkill
- goal-driven-queueSkill
- goal-driven-workflowSkill
- go-deploySkill
- hybrid-debugSkill
- intake-interview-disciplineSkill
- jira-fix-queueSkill
- jira-fix-workflowSkill
- jira-readSkill
- jira-status-lifecycleSkill
- jira-status-writebackSkill
- jira-wiki-markupSkill
- known-issue-researchSkill
- learn-and-improveSkill
- merge-disciplineSkill
- multi-agent-debateSkill
- node-version-disciplineSkill
- opsx-jira-fix-queueSkill
- opsx-jira-fix-workflowSkill
- opsx-solve-workflowSkill
- opsx-workspace-gateSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 64
Run against the open PR/MR about to merge, at the depth Part R selected (full or light).
- Distinctive: line 68
Do not require a full receiving-code-review loop to pass Part R.
- Distinctive: line 72
When acting on review comments (human or this skill): verify against the codebase before changing anything.
- Very specific: line 78
Do not rename to code-review (external name collision).
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
PR Code Review
Portable PR review for open-skills. Combines Anthropic Claude Code code-review plugin flow (eligibility, multi-perspective, ≥80 confidence, permalink comments), mattpocock Standards∥Spec separation + fixed-point diff, and Superpowers plan alignment / severity / strengths-first habits. Platform-agnostic agent dispatch (no host model-tier hardcoding).
Install:
npx skills add FuDesign2008/open-skills -g --skill pr-code-review --yes
When this applies
- User asks to review an open PR/MR, or
merge-disciplinePart R requires pre-merge review. - Skip (state reason, do not comment): PR closed, draft, trivial/automated, or already reviewed by this skill this session/tip.
Depth (full | light)
Callers (especially merge-discipline Part R) MAY pass depth=full or depth=light. Default: full.
| Depth | Behavior |
| full | Dual-axis Standards∥Spec; multi-perspective review preferred in parallel when the host supports it (current default process below) |
| light | Dual-axis Standards∥Spec on the pinned tip is still mandatory; parallel multi-perspective swarm is not required. Confidence ≥80 Critical/Important clearance and publish rules are unchanged |
Standalone user triggers without a depth parameter MUST use full.
Process
- Eligibility — Open, non-draft, needs review; not already reviewed this session on this tip. Else stop.
- Resolve depth —
full(default) orlightfrom the caller. - Pin fixed point — PR/MR base ref, or user-supplied commit/branch, or
origin/<default-branch>for merge candidates. Confirm ref resolves and three-dot diff vs tip is non-empty. Empty diff → abort (do not spawn perspectives). - Resolve Spec source (first hit wins): PR/issue body + linked tickets → user path → OpenSpec change delta / related
openspec/specs→ ask user → else Spec axis = skipped (no spec available). - Resolve Standards sources —
AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md(root + dirs the PR touches), plus coding-standards docs if present. Optional smell baseline: reference.md (repo docs override; smells are judgement calls, never sole hard violations). - Summarize — Short change summary (title, intent, diff shape).
- Dual-axis review (do not merge-rank across axes):
- Standards axis — Documented guidance breaches (cite file + rule); optional smell heuristics.
- Spec axis — Missing/partial planned behavior; unjustified scope creep; wrong implementation of a stated requirement (quote spec/plan line). Skip entire axis if no Spec source.
- full only: also prefer parallel perspectives (bugs-in-diff-only, blame/history, prior PR comments on same files, in-file comment guidance).
- light: skip the mandatory parallel swarm; single-pass dual-axis is enough.
- Calibrate — Each surviving candidate: severity Critical / Important / Minor, then confidence 0–100 (rubric below). Drop scores below 80. Map: Critical/Important usually land ≥75–100 if verified; Minor usually drops unless guidance-hard.
- Strengths — If any, list briefly before issues (accurate praise builds trust in the rest).
- Re-check eligibility — Still open / same tip before publish.
- Publish — Comment via
gh/glab(or report in-session if host forbids comment). Dual-axis sections in the comment; full-SHA permalinks. Templates: reference.md.
Confidence rubric
| Score | Meaning |
| 0 | False positive / pre-existing / fails scrutiny |
| 25 | Unverified / stylistic / not in guidance |
| 50 | Real but nit or rare |
| 75 | Likely real and important; or explicitly required by guidance/plan |
| 100 | Definitely real; evidence confirms |
False positives to discard
Pre-existing; lookalike non-bugs; pedantic nits; linter/typechecker/compiler catchable; generic “more tests/docs/security” unless guidance/plan requires it; unchanged lines; intentional PR-scoped behavior.
Host contract (merge-discipline Part R)
- Run against the open PR/MR about to merge, at the depth Part R selected (
fullorlight). - Pass → neither axis retains ≥80 Critical or Important issues (Minor-only or all scores below 80 = pass). Light depth MUST NOT weaken this gate.
- Fail → report fail to the caller.
merge-disciplinePart R owns fix → re-review until clean (or user explicit Part R skip / accept-residual 留痕) before Part D. Implementing findings alone is not a Part R pass. - CI green / coverage skip is not a substitute.
- Do not require a full receiving-code-review loop to pass Part R.
After feedback (optional pointer)
When acting on review comments (human or this skill): verify against the codebase before changing anything; no performative agreement; reasoned technical pushback when wrong; clarify unclear items before implementing. Full reception discipline is optional and out of Part R.
Integration guide
- Strong-dep from
merge-discipline; missing → abort withnpx skills add FuDesign2008/open-skills -g --skill pr-code-review --yes - Do not rename to
code-review(external name collision).
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
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.