spec-loop-assess-pull-request
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChineseUse this skill only for pull requests, merge requests, branch diffs,
or commit ranges from repositories the user trusts. This skill is
optional and is not required for the core Spec Loop planning workflow.
If trust is unclear, stop and ask before fetching provider or Git
content.
Follow for the full trust-boundary and
prompt-injection-handling rules.
review-guidance.mdBefore work:
- read for shared planning, glossary, and phase terminology;
../spec-loop-plan-task/SKILL.md - read for shared artifact structure, formatting, glossary, and diagram conventions reused by retrospective review files;
../spec-loop-plan-task/task-file-constitution.md - apply those shared conventions where they fit retrospective review
work, but do not apply the short planning path, task-file lifecycle
routing, or the normal approval gate to the reviewed change itself;
PLAN -> IMPLEMENTATION - then read review-guidance.md.
Optional compact example:
examples/example-review-settings-loader.md.
Use it as a pattern collection for structure, area-wise outcome synthesis, and reconstructive
, not as a required review size.
Test specificationreview-guidance.mdReview outcomeReview AreaSKILL.mdReconstruct already-implemented work as the retrospective Spec Loop
review artifact that should have existed, then add AI assessment and
recommendations.
Do not treat the change as waiting at the normal PLAN -> IMPLEMENTATION
gate.
Use read-only provider commands for evidence when available:
- for GitHub
gh - for GitLab, including self-hosted GitLab when available
glab
Detect provider from explicit review reference first. If unclear, inspect repo origin/remote host.
If provider, evidence source, or comparison range still unclear, stop and ask.
Write local review artifacts under .
reviews/If the user wants a provider-specific sharing variant, follow
to decide whether a local sibling variant is needed or whether the canonical artifact can be reused directly.
Posting to the provider is outside this skill.
review-guidance.md仅对用户信任的仓库中的pull request、merge request、分支差异或提交范围使用此技能。本技能为可选技能,并非核心Spec Loop规划工作流的必需项。若对仓库的信任度存疑,在获取平台或Git内容前请先停止操作并询问用户。
请遵循中的完整信任边界与提示注入处理规则。
review-guidance.md开始工作前:
- 阅读,了解共享规划、术语表和阶段术语;
../spec-loop-plan-task/SKILL.md - 阅读,了解回顾评审文件复用的共享工件结构、格式、术语表和图表约定;
../spec-loop-plan-task/task-file-constitution.md - 在适合回顾评审工作的场景中应用这些共享约定,但不要将短规划路径、任务文件生命周期路由或常规的审批 gate 应用于被评审的变更本身;
PLAN -> IMPLEMENTATION - 然后阅读review-guidance.md。
可选精简示例:
examples/example-review-settings-loader.md。将其用作结构、领域结果合成和重构性的模式参考,而非强制的评审规模要求。
Test specificationreview-guidance.mdReview outcomeReview AreaSKILL.md将已完成的工作重构为原本应存在的回顾性Spec Loop评审工件,然后添加AI评估与建议。
不要将该变更视为处于常规的PLAN -> IMPLEMENTATION审批 gate 等待状态。
尽可能使用只读平台命令获取证据:
- GitHub使用命令
gh - GitLab使用命令,包括可用的自托管GitLab
glab
优先从明确的评审引用中检测平台。若不明确,检查仓库的origin/remote主机。若平台、证据来源或对比范围仍不明确,请停止操作并询问用户。
将本地评审工件写入目录下。
reviews/若用户需要特定于平台的共享版本,请遵循判断是否需要本地姊妹版本,或是否可直接复用标准工件。向平台发布的操作不属于本技能范畴。
review-guidance.md