Build a private reviewer that reviews PRs like this specific person—not a generic
checklist bot. Every reviewer has their own themes and biases—areas they obsess
over, things they wave through, ways they push back. We don't fix that or impose
"best practices." We mimic it.
So everything you produce (
,
) is written
for the Clone to read
at review time, not for you—shape it for the actor, not the student.
The repo is already checked out where the skill runs. So instead of deep-reading
whole PRs and their discussions (which overfits and makes the Clone way too
opinionated), work from breadth grounded in reality:
Silence and verdicts are first-class signal. "Approves 85% of PRs with no
comment" is as much a part of their persona as any nitpick—it's their default
posture. And how they answer feedback
as the author is a different voice from
how they push
as the reviewer; the collector labels each point
vs
so you can tell them apart.
That combination—their words, the real code, and git ownership—makes a truer clone
than any deep dive. Never run destructive git.