Files
gstack/review/SKILL.md.tmpl
T
Garry Tan 1e06b6a5c6 fix: dynamic base branch detection across all SKILL templates (v0.3.10) (#81)
* feat: add {{BASE_BRANCH_DETECT}} resolver to gen-skill-docs

DRY placeholder for dynamic base branch detection across PR-targeting
skills. Detects via gh pr view (existing PR base) → gh repo view
(repo default) → fallback to main.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix: ship skill detects base branch instead of hardcoding main

Replaces ~14 hardcoded 'main' references with dynamic detection via
{{BASE_BRANCH_DETECT}}. Fixes stacked branches and Conductor workspaces
targeting non-main branches. Adds --base <base> to gh pr create.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix: review, qa, plan-ceo-review detect base branch dynamically

Same pattern as ship: replaces hardcoded 'main' with {{BASE_BRANCH_DETECT}}.
Also cleans up qa bash-isms (REPORT_DIR variable, port chaining).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix: retro detects default branch instead of hardcoding origin/main

Retro queries commit history (not PR targets), so uses simpler detection:
gh repo view defaultBranchRef. Replaces ~11 origin/main refs with
origin/<default>.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* docs: add explicit cross-step references in gstack-upgrade template

Bash blocks are self-contained, but cross-block variable references
(INSTALL_DIR from Step 2) were implicit. Adds prose making them explicit.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* docs+test: SKILL authoring guidance + regression tests

Adds "Writing SKILL templates" section to CLAUDE.md explaining that
templates are prompts, not scripts. Adds validation test catching
hardcoded 'main' in git commands, and resolver content test.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* docs: update ARCHITECTURE + CONTRIBUTING for new placeholders

Add {{BASE_BRANCH_DETECT}} to ARCHITECTURE.md placeholder list.
Cross-reference CLAUDE.md template authoring guidance from CONTRIBUTING.md.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* chore: bump version and changelog (v0.3.10)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix: add missing blank line between resolver functions

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* test: add 3 E2E smoke tests for base branch detection

- /review: verifies Step 0 detection + git diff against detected base
- /ship: truncated dry-run (Steps 0-1 only, no push/PR), asserts no
  destructive actions
- /retro: verifies default branch detection for git log queries

Covers the {{BASE_BRANCH_DETECT}} resolver path (review), the ship
template's dual abort check, and retro's inline detection pattern.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* chore: bump version and changelog (v0.4.2)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-03-16 10:59:13 -05:00

134 lines
6.2 KiB
Cheetah

---
name: review
version: 1.0.0
description: |
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust
boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues.
allowed-tools:
- Bash
- Read
- Edit
- Write
- Grep
- Glob
- AskUserQuestion
---
{{PREAMBLE}}
{{BASE_BRANCH_DETECT}}
# Pre-Landing PR Review
You are running the `/review` workflow. Analyze the current branch's diff against the base branch 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 the base branch, output: **"Nothing to review — you're on the base branch or have no changes against it."** and stop.
3. Run `git fetch origin <base> --quiet && git diff origin/<base> --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 base branch to avoid false positives from stale local state:
```bash
git fetch origin <base> --quiet
```
Run `git diff origin/<base>` to get the full diff. This includes both committed and uncommitted changes against the latest base branch.
---
## Step 4: Two-pass review
Apply the checklist against the diff in two passes:
1. **Pass 1 (CRITICAL):** SQL & Data Safety, Race Conditions & Concurrency, LLM Output Trust Boundary, Enum & Value Completeness
2. **Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL):** Conditional Side Effects, Magic Numbers & String Coupling, Dead Code & Consistency, LLM Prompt Issues, Test Gaps, View/Frontend
**Enum & Value Completeness requires reading code OUTSIDE the diff.** When the diff introduces a new enum value, status, tier, or type constant, use Grep to find all files that reference sibling values, then Read those files to check if the new value is handled. This is the one category where within-diff review is insufficient.
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, then `RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because [one-line reason]`, then 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: <title>"
- **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.