review

Review one change set in one mode and return a decision-led report.

Guardrails

Require an explicit mode:
```
pr
```
or
```
local
```
.
Do not implement or modify code.
Do not commit, merge, push, or delete branches.
Do not update PRD/todo tracking files here.
Update
```
tasks/memory.md
```
only for durable review outcomes (recurring risks, release-critical gotchas, or confirmed follow-up decisions).
Do not invent test results; run checks or call out missing evidence.

Inputs

review mode:
- ```
pr
```
  : PR URL/number (preferred)
- ```
local
```
  : base branch (default: repository default branch resolved from
```
origin/HEAD
```
  ; ask if unclear)
optional PRD path (if scope validation is needed)

Workflow

Confirm mode and target.

Collect context:

pr

mode:

Preferred (

gh

available):

gh pr view --json url,number,title,body,state,isDraft,baseRefName,headRefName,files,additions,deletions

```
gh pr diff
```
```
gh pr checks
```

Fallback (
```
gh
```
unavailable/auth fails):
- ask for base/head branch names if not already provided
- ```
git fetch origin "<base>" "<head>"
```
- ```
git diff "origin/<base>...origin/<head>"
```
- ```
git log "origin/<base>..origin/<head>" --oneline
```
- mark CI/check status as
```
Missing evidence
```
  unless the user provides CI artifacts

local

mode:

```
git diff "<base>...HEAD"
```
```
git log "<base>..HEAD" --oneline
```
```
git status --short
```

Compare the change set against required behaviour:
- correctness and edge cases
- security risks and data handling
- test depth and regression risk
- scope control (especially if PRD path is provided)
  - Compare diff vs PRD 'In scope' and completed user stories; flag any diff not attributable to a PRD requirement.
Classify findings:
- blockers (must fix)
- suggestions (optional improvements)
- missing evidence (tests/checks not run, unclear behaviour)
  - If unable to run checks (CI-only, permissions), mark as 'Missing evidence' and request the specific artifact (CI link, log, or command for user to run).
Produce the report with a clear recommendation:
- ```
pr
```
  mode:
```
Ready to accept PR: Yes
```
  or
```
Ready to accept PR: No
```
- ```
local
```
  mode:
```
Good to commit: Yes
```
  or
```
Good to commit: No
```
- if decision is
```
No
```
  , include explicit fix items and ask the user to address them before rerunning
```
review
```
  in the same mode
Evaluate memory-worthy review outcomes and update
```
tasks/memory.md
```
inline when needed:
- systemic risks likely to recur
- key security or data-handling decisions
- durable follow-up decisions that affect future work
- if no durable outcome exists, mark memory as skipped with reason in the report

Review Checklist

Correctness:
- empty/null/error paths
- boundary values and state transitions
- ordering/concurrency/time assumptions (if applicable)
Security:
- authn/authz behaviour
- input validation and output encoding
- secret/PII handling and logging safety
- dependency risk for newly introduced packages
Tests and verification:
- happy path + key failure paths
- regression coverage in touched areas
- manual verification steps when automation is missing
Maintainability:
- naming clarity and control-flow simplicity
- comments/docs for non-obvious decisions only

Report Template

text

PR Mode Report
Mode: pr
Decision:
- Ready to accept PR: Yes | No

Blockers (must fix):
- …

Suggestions (nice to have):
- …

Missing evidence:
- …

Security notes:
- …

Regression risks / watch-outs:
- …

Memory updates:
- Updated: <summary> | Skipped: <reason>

Recommended next step:
- If Ready to accept PR=No: ask user to fix blockers, then rerun `review` in `pr` mode.
- If Ready to accept PR=Yes: run `commit` in `finalise` mode.

text

Local Mode Report
Mode: local
Decision:
- Good to commit: Yes | No

Blockers (must fix):
- …

Suggestions (nice to have):
- …

Missing evidence:
- …

Security notes:
- …

Regression risks / watch-outs:
- …

Memory updates:
- Updated: <summary> | Skipped: <reason>

Recommended next step:
- If Good to commit=No: ask user to fix blockers, then rerun `review` in `local` mode.
- If Good to commit=Yes: run `commit` in `commit` mode.

Output

Return the review report with explicit memory update status.
Keep the decision explicit and unambiguous.
End with a short status block:
- Files changed: list of created/updated files
- Key decisions: any assumptions or choices made (if any)
- Next step: recommended next skill or action

review

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

review

Guardrails

Inputs

Workflow

Review Checklist

Report Template

Output