review-request
Skill30 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Draft a short, paste-ready message asking teammates to review a pull request. Pulls the PR title, link, size, and CI status via the gh CLI, and reviewers from project config. Use when the user asks to "request review", "ask for a review", "ping for review", "post the PR", "announce the PR", or wants a one-liner to share a PR for review.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- digitalgym/aipathway-standardstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- sentimony/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- EvildoerXiaoyy/reasonix-skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 23, 2026
- tokarix/memory-servertheir own version, first seen Mar 12, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- sentimony/skills★ 7same name
- EvildoerXiaoyy/reasonix-skills★ 4same name
- tokarix/memory-server★ 1same name
- digitalgym/aipathway-standards★ 0same 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 repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- change-briefSkill
- clean-goneSkill
- close-customer-loopSkill
- commitSkill
- finishSkill
- notificationsSkill
- plan-qaSkill
- plan-tddSkill
- release-notesSkill
- releaseSkill
- reviewSkill
- review-watchSkill
- rfcSkill
- setupSkill
- standupSkill
- start-qaSkill
- startSkill
- statusSkill
- syncSkill
- tddSkill
- updateSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 17
If $ARGUMENTS contains a PR number or GitHub URL, use it.
- Very specific: line 24
If no PR exists for the current branch, stop and tell the user to create one first (e.g.
- Distinctive: line 33
If no reviewers are configured, do not invent any.
- Very specific: line 43
Draft: if isDraft, note it's a draft (or suggest marking ready first).
- Distinctive: line 50
Write a short, direct message.
- Distinctive: line 56
Keep it to 2–4 lines. No filler, no emoji unless the project's own conventions use them.
“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
Cross-runtime: follow runtime compatibility for invocation, delegation, configuration precedence, state paths, and permissions.
You are drafting a concise, professional message that asks teammates to review a pull request. Your task is to gather PR facts via the gh CLI, pull default reviewers from project config, and produce a paste-ready message (for Slack, a PR comment, or chat). Follow each step in order. Requires GitHub CLI (gh) authenticated.
Step 1: Resolve the Pull Request
Determine which PR to announce:
- If
$ARGUMENTScontains a PR number or GitHub URL, use it. - Otherwise, resolve the PR for the current branch:
gh pr view --json number,title,url,additions,deletions,changedFiles,isDraft,reviewDecision,statusCheckRollup,baseRefName,headRefName,bodyIf no PR exists for the current branch, stop and tell the user to create one first (e.g. with /finish).
Step 2: Load Configuration
Resolve .git-workflow/config.yaml first, then .claude/config.yaml as a legacy read-only fallback. Use defaults only when neither file exists.
pullRequests.reviewers→ default reviewers (GitHub usernames ororg/teamslugs). Use these as the people/teams to @-mention.pullRequests.labels→ for context only.
If no reviewers are configured, do not invent any. Either omit the mention or ask the user who should review (only if it adds value). Never hardcode a specific person or team.
Step 3: Gather PR Facts
From the gh data:
- Title and URL.
- Size:
+{additions} / -{deletions}across{changedFiles}files. Classify roughly:XS(<10 lines),S(<50),M(<200),L(<500),XL(500+). This helps reviewers budget time. - CI status: summarize
statusCheckRollupas passing / failing / pending. - Review state:
reviewDecision(REVIEW_REQUIRED,APPROVED,CHANGES_REQUESTED). - Draft: if
isDraft, note it's a draft (or suggest marking ready first). - Base ← head branches.
Optionally distill a one-line summary of what the PR does from its title and body (first meaningful line). Keep it factual — do not overstate.
Step 4: Compose the Message
Write a short, direct message. Guidelines:
- Lead with the ask and the link.
- Include the one-line purpose and the size so reviewers know the scope.
- Mention CI status only if it's failing or pending (so nobody reviews a red PR by surprise).
- @-mention the configured reviewers/teams once, if any.
- Keep it to 2–4 lines. No filler, no emoji unless the project's own conventions use them.
Default template:
Review please: {one-line purpose} — {url}
Size: {size} ({+adds}/{-dels}, {files} files){, CI: {status} if not passing}
{@reviewer1 @org/team if configured}Adapt tone to the destination if the user specifies one (Slack vs. formal PR comment). Do not impose any particular personal writing style.
Step 5: Present
Print the message as a single copy-pasteable block. If the PR is a draft, has failing CI, or is already approved, add a one-line heads-up before the message so the user can decide whether to send it now.
Configuration Reference
| Setting | Default | Description |
pullRequests.reviewers | [] | GitHub usernames / org/team slugs to @-mention |
Error Handling
| Scenario | Action |
gh not installed or not authenticated | Stop with a short setup hint (gh auth login) |
| No PR for the current branch | Ask the user to create one first (e.g. /finish) |
| No reviewers configured | Produce the message without a mention; optionally note it |
| CI status unavailable | Omit the CI line rather than guessing |
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.

