Files

T

mohitagw15856 49137bd1b6 Content quality improvements to 7 engineering skills (partial batch)

Applies reviewer-feedback-driven improvements across 7 skills:
- code-review-checklist: add Section 1 header, optional diff input, precise
  review time estimate, stronger quality checks
- debugging-log-analyser: improve Context input, add Frequency input,
  add Section 1 Error Classification header, stronger quality checks
- changelog-generator: add Previous Version Behaviour + Scope inputs,
  clarify Formatting Rules are skill-internal, stronger quality checks
- pr-description-writer: add Target Branch + Linked Issue inputs, fix
  Screenshots omission instruction, stronger quality checks
- test-strategy-doc: split Existing Coverage from Tech Stack, add
  Deployment Cadence input, fix Performance Tests conditional,
  stronger quality checks
- runbook-writer: add Monitoring Tools + Key Environment Details inputs,
  fix Last Updated placeholder, stronger quality checks
- incident-postmortem: add Responders + Customer Communications inputs

Both skills/ and plugins/pm-engineering/skills/ copies updated.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01C3HwChrccJd145vJ6Z7ajF

2026-05-20 12:06:26 +00:00

4.3 KiB

Raw Blame History

name, description

name	description
code-review-checklist	Generate a tailored code review checklist for any pull request based on the language, type of change, and risk level. Use when asked to review code, check a PR, review a pull request, or generate a code review checklist. Produces a focused checklist with language-specific checks, risk-level-appropriate depth, and a clear approve/request-changes recommendation.

Code Review Checklist Skill

Produces a tailored code review checklist for a specific pull request — scaled to the language, type of change, and risk level. Not a generic template.

Required Inputs

Ask the user for these if not provided:

Language and framework (e.g. TypeScript + React / Python + FastAPI / Go)
Type of change (feature / bug fix / refactor / dependency upgrade / security patch / performance)
Risk level (low / medium / high / critical)
PR description (paste the description or link to the PR)
Code or diff (optional — paste key changed files or a git diff; significantly improves checklist specificity)
Author context (new starter / experienced / external contributor)

Output Format

Code Review: [PR Title or Reference]

1. PR Overview

Scope assessment: [Small / Medium / Large / Too large — should be split] Recommended review depth: [Skim / Standard / Deep dive] Estimated review time: [e.g. 20–30 min — use 5 min per 50 lines of diff as a rough guide]

2. Correctness Checks

Language-specific correctness checks — choose based on the language stated:

For TypeScript/JavaScript:

Type definitions match actual usage
No implicit any in non-test code
Async/await used consistently; no unhandled promises
Null/undefined handling is explicit

For Python:

Type hints present on public functions
Exception handling is specific (no bare except)
Resources are closed (context managers, with blocks)

For Go:

Errors are handled or explicitly ignored with a comment
Context propagation is correct
Goroutine lifetimes are bounded

[Include only the section matching the stated language]

3. Change-Type-Specific Checks

For bug fixes:

A test exists that would have caught this bug
The fix addresses root cause, not symptom
Related code paths checked for the same issue

For features:

Acceptance criteria met
Edge cases handled (empty, large, concurrent)
Error paths tested, not just happy path
Telemetry/logging added for debugging

For refactors:

Behaviour unchanged (tests still pass)
No scope creep — refactor only
Complexity reduced, not just moved

For dependency upgrades:

Breaking changes reviewed
Security advisories checked
License compatibility verified

[Include only the section matching the stated change type]

4. Risk-Appropriate Checks

Low risk: basic correctness, style conventions, test coverage Medium risk: above + rollback plan, monitoring updates, performance considerations High risk: above + security implications, data migration safety, feature flag/gradual rollout Critical risk: above + staging validation plan, incident response plan, post-deploy verification checklist

5. Testing Adequacy

Unit tests cover new logic
Integration tests cover the contract changes
Edge cases tested
Failure modes tested
Performance tests if performance-sensitive

6. Review Decision Framework

Approve if: [2-3 specific conditions based on this PR] Request changes if: [Specific blockers] Comment (non-blocking) if: [Items worth discussing but not blocking merge]

7. Common Pitfalls for This Change Type

Based on the change type and language, flag 2-3 things reviewers typically miss for this combination.

Quality Checks

Checklist is tailored to the stated language (not generic)
Change-type-specific section is included
Risk-appropriate depth matches stated risk level
Decision framework includes at least one named blocking condition and one named non-blocking comment condition
Common pitfalls are specific to the stated language + change-type combo (not generic advice like "watch out for bugs")

Usage Examples

"Generate a code review checklist for [PR description]"
"What should I check in this pull request?"
"Give me a code review checklist for a [language] [change type]"
"Review checklist for a high-risk PR in [language]"

4.3 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape