pr-review

Files (2)

• SKILL.md
• conventions.md

SKILL.md (first lines)

# PR Review Conventions

## Quick Start

### Severity Levels

| Severity     | Description                                                  | Blocking |
| ------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ | -------- |
| `major`      | Must be addressed before merging to production               | Yes      |
| `minor`      | Non-blocking if merged, but should be addressed in follow-up | No       |
| `suggestion` | Loose opinion — an idea the author can freely ignore         | No       |
| `nit`        | Strong but unimportant opinion — stylistic preference        | No       |

### Feedback Types

| Type       | Description                                 | Guidelines                                                        |
| ---------- | ------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
| `question` | Needs clarification from author             | Use when intent is unclear or design decision needs explanation   |
| `praise`   | Pattern or technique deserving appreciation | Include only 2-3 per review — highlight genuinely impressive work |

### Nit vs Suggestion

- **Nit**: "I feel strongly about this, but it doesn't really matter" (naming, formatting preferences)
- **Suggestion**: "Here's an idea you could consider" (alternative approach, optional optimization)

### Review Language

- Use "we", "I", or "the code" instead of "you"
- Be specific in suggestions — include file paths and line numbers
- Provide actionable feedback with code examples when possible
- Prioritize: major items first, nits last

### Praise Budget

Reviews should have **2-3 praise items maximum**. Recognize genuinely impressive patterns, elegant solutions, or good architectural decisions. Don't overuse.

### Review Checklist

Before finalizing any review, verify coverage of:

- [ ] Code correctness and logic
- [ ] Error handling
- [ ] Type safety
- [ ] Security implications
- [ ] Performance considerations
- [ ] Test coverage
- [ ] Documentation needs
- [ ] Conventional commit compliance

### Verdict Criteria

| Condition                          | Verdict                     |
| ---------------------------------- | --------------------------- |
| Any major issues remain            | CHANGES REQUESTED           |
| Unanswered questions remain        | NEEDS DISCUSSION            |
| Only minor/suggestion/nit          | APPROVED (with suggestions) |
| All items addressed or only praise | APPROVED                    |

## Additional Resources

- For full review process, report template, and examples, see [conventions.md](conventions.md)
- For the complete review command, see `.cursor/commands/code-review/review-pr.md`
- For interactive review refinement, see `.cursor/commands/code-review/interactive-review.md`

From N43-Studio/n43-cursor, MIT.

More from N43-Studio/n43-cursor