windmill/.claude/skills/local-review/SKILL.md

name, user_invocable, description

name	user_invocable	description
local-review	true	Code review a pull request for bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance. MUST use when asked to review code.

Local Code Review Skill

Review a pull request for real bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance violations. This review targets HIGH SIGNAL issues only.

Review Philosophy

• Only flag issues you are certain about. If you are not sure an issue is real, do not flag it. False positives erode trust and waste reviewer time.
• Think like a senior engineer doing a final review — flag things that would cause incidents, not things that are merely imperfect.

What to Flag

• Code that won't compile or parse (syntax errors, type errors, missing imports)
• Code that will definitely produce wrong results regardless of inputs
• Clear, unambiguous CLAUDE.md violations (quote the exact rule being violated)
• Security issues in introduced code (injection, auth bypass, data exposure)
• Incorrect logic that will fail in production

What NOT to Flag

• Code style or quality concerns
• Potential issues that depend on specific inputs or runtime state
• Subjective suggestions or improvements
• Pre-existing issues not introduced by this PR
• Pedantic nitpicks a senior engineer wouldn't flag
• Issues a linter or type checker will catch
• General quality concerns unless explicitly prohibited in CLAUDE.md
• Issues silenced via lint ignore comments

Execution Steps

1. Determine the PR scope:

   • If an argument is provided, use it as the PR number or branch
   • Otherwise, detect from the current branch vs main
   • Run gh pr view if a PR exists, or use git diff main...HEAD

2. Find relevant CLAUDE.md files:

   • Read the root CLAUDE.md
   • Check for CLAUDE.md files in directories containing changed files

3. Get the diff and metadata:

   • gh pr diff or git diff main...HEAD for the full diff
   • gh pr view or git log main..HEAD --oneline for context

4. Read changed files where the diff alone is insufficient to understand context

5. Review for:

   • CLAUDE.md compliance — check each rule against the changed code
   • Bugs and logic errors — will this code work correctly?
   • Security issues — injection, auth, data exposure in new code

6. Self-validate each finding: Before reporting, ask yourself:

   • "Is this definitely a real issue, not a false positive?"
   • "Would a senior engineer flag this in review?"
   • If the answer to either is no, discard the finding

7. Output findings to the terminal (default) or post as PR comments (with --comment flag)

Output Format

## Code review

Found N issues:

1. <description> (<reason: CLAUDE.md adherence | bug | security>)
   <file_path:line_number>

2. <description> (<reason>)
   <file_path:line_number>

If no issues are found:

## Code review

No issues found. Checked for bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance.

Posting Comments (--comment flag)

If the user passes --comment, post findings as inline PR comments using:

gh pr review --comment --body "<summary>"

Or for inline comments on specific lines:

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/reviews -f body="<summary>" -f event="COMMENT" -f comments="[...]"