.agents/skills/gh-pr-review/references/local-review.md
Single-agent review for a small scope, or as the explicit fallback when a
runtime cannot launch independent subagents. Scope and SMALL_SCOPE are
derived by SKILL.md § Scope derivation. Reviews the diff and reports
confirmed issues with fix guidance; edits code only when the invocation
explicitly authorized fixing.
Follow SKILL.md § Interaction and interruption contract; this flow introduces
no additional prompt category.
REVIEW_TARGET, the resolved review scope, and SMALL_SCOPE, all derived
by SKILL.md § Scope derivation.AUTHORIZED_FIX: true only when the invocation explicitly granted
fixing (fix modifier or equivalent user wording). Commit and range
targets are always report-only regardless of the flag.LIMITED_SINGLE_AGENT: true only when a non-small scope was routed here
because the runtime has no subagent capability. Default false.| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
consumer-review.md | Consumer review stage (changes adding/expanding shared surface) |
code-checklist.md | Code review checklist |
doc-checklist.md | Document review checklist |
cherry-review-guidance.md | Cherry Studio project-specific review boundaries |
judgment-matrix.md | Risk levels, worth-fixing criteria, special rules |
checklist-evolution.md | Checklist update flow and rules |
Scope, resolved-scope emptiness, and SMALL_SCOPE are owned by SKILL.md
§ Scope derivation. The router already resolved them; when invoked
standalone, derive them with those rules and print its usage examples if the
resolved scope is empty. Do not restate the derivation here.
Run the review stages defined in SKILL.md § Review Stages in order.
SKILL.md § Review Stages, stage 1 for
the skip test and mode rules: skip silently only after inspecting the
semantics the change expresses or constrains, never from its change type;
interactive is the default (ask the current user for the product decision
and stop the whole review if the direction is rejected), and record-only
automated behavior applies only when the invocation or workflow context
explicitly identifies an automated run, carrying the product-impact
summary into Step 4's report. Skip this step when the PR wrapper already
ran the gate.consumer-review.md; only surviving surfaces continue to the stages below.Review the diff. Apply code-checklist.md to code files,
doc-checklist.md to documentation files. Apply cherry-review-guidance.md to
code, mixed, Cherry architecture documentation, and project-skill changes:
first read the docs its "Mandatory Baseline Docs" section requires for the
touched processes, then load only the on-demand references it routes to.
Review architecture-first — settle placement, ownership, and
abstraction-integrity findings against those docs before line-level detail;
doc violations are Warning minimum. For React component changes, also consult
vercel-react-best-practices skill for detailed performance patterns. When
changed lines depend on surrounding context, read the relevant sections or
related definitions as needed. Untracked files have no diff — review their
full contents as new code.
If the branch has an associated GitHub PR, inspect its checks with gh pr checks and include failing or pending CI in the review. Do not run pnpm lint,
pnpm test, or pnpm format locally during review. If no associated PR exists,
state that CI validation is unavailable and keep the result explicitly limited
to static review.
For each issue found:
git diff --name-only or file search before reporting.Output rule: only present the final confirmed issues to the user. Do not output analysis process, exclusion reasoning, or issues that were considered but ruled out.
Consult judgment-matrix.md for risk level assessment, worth-fixing criteria,
and special rules. Discard issues that are not worth reporting.
If no issues remain after filtering, keep an empty issue list and continue to Step 4 so every mandatory disclosure is still reported. Step 5 may be skipped because there are no confirmed issues to evolve into checklist candidates.
Do not ask the user which issues to fix.
Apply judgment-matrix.md § Handling by Risk Level, which owns what each risk
level permits under AUTHORIZED_FIX. Keep every applied fix at the defect's
altitude per cherry-review-guidance.md § Fix Recommendation Policy.
Present a summary of what was reviewed and either the issues fixed/reported
with their fix guidance or "no issues found". If
LIMITED_SINGLE_AGENT = true, explicitly state that the scope was non-small
but the runtime had no subagent capability, so the review was single-agent and
did not include independent adversarial verification. In an automated session
with product impact, include the Product Demand summary — impact, direction,
and points needing human confirmation — explicitly marked as awaiting a
product decision, never as approved.
Validation: when fixes were applied, the session is a coding task — run the
validation selected per SKILL.md § Validation after applied fixes and report
the results; a failure caused by a fix means the fix is reverted or reported
as failed.
When nothing was edited, do not run local lint/test/format and state the CI baseline recorded in Step 2, matching it: with an associated PR, existing CI covers the reviewed commit but not any unpushed change; with no associated PR — file, commit, or local-branch review — CI validation is unavailable and the result is static review only. Never claim CI coverage the target does not have.
Review all confirmed issues from this session. If any represent a recurring
pattern not covered by the current checklist, read checklist-evolution.md and
record valid candidates as proposed in the report. A regular review never
accepts, inserts, or claims to persist checklist rules.