--- name: review version: 1.0.0 description: | Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against main for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. allowed-tools: - Bash - Read - Edit - Write - Grep - Glob - AskUserQuestion --- {{UPDATE_CHECK}} # Pre-Landing PR Review You are running the `/review` workflow. Analyze the current branch's diff against main for structural issues that tests don't catch. --- ## Step 1: Check branch 1. Run `git branch --show-current` to get the current branch. 2. If on `main`, output: **"Nothing to review — you're on main or have no changes against main."** and stop. 3. Run `git fetch origin main --quiet && git diff origin/main --stat` to check if there's a diff. If no diff, output the same message and stop. --- ## Step 2: Read the checklist Read `.claude/skills/review/checklist.md`. **If the file cannot be read, STOP and report the error.** Do not proceed without the checklist. --- ## Step 2.5: Check for Greptile review comments Read `.claude/skills/review/greptile-triage.md` and follow the fetch, filter, classify, and **escalation detection** steps. **If no PR exists, `gh` fails, API returns an error, or there are zero Greptile comments:** Skip this step silently. Greptile integration is additive — the review works without it. **If Greptile comments are found:** Store the classifications (VALID & ACTIONABLE, VALID BUT ALREADY FIXED, FALSE POSITIVE, SUPPRESSED) — you will need them in Step 5. --- ## Step 3: Get the diff Fetch the latest main to avoid false positives from a stale local main: ```bash git fetch origin main --quiet ``` Run `git diff origin/main` to get the full diff. This includes both committed and uncommitted changes against the latest main. --- ## Step 4: Two-pass review Apply the checklist against the diff in two passes: 1. **Pass 1 (CRITICAL):** SQL & Data Safety, LLM Output Trust Boundary 2. **Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL):** Conditional Side Effects, Magic Numbers & String Coupling, Dead Code & Consistency, LLM Prompt Issues, Test Gaps, View/Frontend Follow the output format specified in the checklist. Respect the suppressions — do NOT flag items listed in the "DO NOT flag" section. --- ## Step 5: Output findings **Always output ALL findings** — both critical and informational. The user must see every issue. - If CRITICAL issues found: output all findings, then for EACH critical issue use a separate AskUserQuestion with the problem, your recommended fix, and options (A: Fix it now, B: Acknowledge, C: False positive — skip). After all critical questions are answered, output a summary of what the user chose for each issue. If the user chose A (fix) on any issue, apply the recommended fixes. If only B/C were chosen, no action needed. - If only non-critical issues found: output findings. No further action needed. - If no issues found: output `Pre-Landing Review: No issues found.` ### Greptile comment resolution After outputting your own findings, if Greptile comments were classified in Step 2.5: **Include a Greptile summary in your output header:** `+ N Greptile comments (X valid, Y fixed, Z FP)` Before replying to any comment, run the **Escalation Detection** algorithm from greptile-triage.md to determine whether to use Tier 1 (friendly) or Tier 2 (firm) reply templates. 1. **VALID & ACTIONABLE comments:** These are already included in your CRITICAL findings — they follow the same AskUserQuestion flow (A: Fix it now, B: Acknowledge, C: False positive). If the user chooses A (fix), reply using the **Fix reply template** from greptile-triage.md (include inline diff + explanation). If the user chooses C (false positive), reply using the **False Positive reply template** (include evidence + suggested re-rank), save to both per-project and global greptile-history. 2. **FALSE POSITIVE comments:** Present each one via AskUserQuestion: - Show the Greptile comment: file:line (or [top-level]) + body summary + permalink URL - Explain concisely why it's a false positive - Options: - A) Reply to Greptile explaining why this is incorrect (recommended if clearly wrong) - B) Fix it anyway (if low-effort and harmless) - C) Ignore — don't reply, don't fix If the user chooses A, reply using the **False Positive reply template** from greptile-triage.md (include evidence + suggested re-rank), save to both per-project and global greptile-history. 3. **VALID BUT ALREADY FIXED comments:** Reply using the **Already Fixed reply template** from greptile-triage.md — no AskUserQuestion needed: - Include what was done and the fixing commit SHA - Save to both per-project and global greptile-history 4. **SUPPRESSED comments:** Skip silently — these are known false positives from previous triage. --- ## Step 5.5: TODOS cross-reference Read `TODOS.md` in the repository root (if it exists). Cross-reference the PR against open TODOs: - **Does this PR close any open TODOs?** If yes, note which items in your output: "This PR addresses TODO: " - **Does this PR create work that should become a TODO?** If yes, flag it as an informational finding. - **Are there related TODOs that provide context for this review?** If yes, reference them when discussing related findings. If TODOS.md doesn't exist, skip this step silently. --- ## Important Rules - **Read the FULL diff before commenting.** Do not flag issues already addressed in the diff. - **Read-only by default.** Only modify files if the user explicitly chooses "Fix it now" on a critical issue. Never commit, push, or create PRs. - **Be terse.** One line problem, one line fix. No preamble. - **Only flag real problems.** Skip anything that's fine. - **Use Greptile reply templates from greptile-triage.md.** Every reply includes evidence. Never post vague replies.