mosaicstack/stack
16
0
Fork 1
Code Issues 330 Pull Requests 12 Actions Packages Projects Releases 15 Wiki Activity
Files
docs/w4-document-contract
stack/packages/mosaic/framework/skills/pr-reviewer/references/scenarios.md
T
fargo 1a822493ba format: apply repo prettier (3.8.1) to the folded skills tree 
963 markdown files reformatted with the repository's pinned prettier so
pnpm format:check covers the folded tree like every other repo file.

The formatter's embedded-language pass also normalized code fences
(TS semicolons, closed HTML tags in examples, lowercased CSS hex colors,
one renumbered list that skipped an index). Alphanumeric token deltas vs
the fold commit were audited file-by-file; all are formatter-equivalent
markup normalizations plus the four sanitized skills.
2026-08-19 14:37:17 -05:00

2.4 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

Common Review Scenarios

Detailed workflows for specific review use cases.

Scenario 1: Quick Review Request

Trigger: User provides PR URL and requests review.

Workflow:

  1. Run fetch_pr_data.py to collect data
  2. Read SUMMARY.txt and metadata.json
  3. Scan diff.patch for obvious issues
  4. Apply critical criteria (security, bugs, tests)
  5. Create findings JSON with analysis
  6. Run generate_review_files.py to create review files
  7. Direct user to review pr/review.md and pr/human.md
  8. Remind user to use /show to edit, then /send or /send-decline

Scenario 2: Thorough Review with Inline Comments

Trigger: User requests comprehensive review with inline comments.

Workflow:

  1. Run fetch_pr_data.py with cloning enabled
  2. Read all collected files (metadata, diff, comments, commits)
  3. Apply full review_criteria.md checklist
  4. Identify critical issues, important issues, and nits
  5. Create findings JSON with inline_comments array
  6. Run generate_review_files.py to create all files
  7. Direct user to:
    • Review pr/review.md for detailed analysis
    • Edit pr/human.md if needed
    • Check pr/inline.md for proposed comments
    • Use /show to open in VS Code
    • Use /send or /send-decline when ready
    • Optionally post inline comments from pr/inline.md

Scenario 3: Security-Focused Review

Trigger: User requests security-specific review.

Workflow:

  1. Fetch PR data
  2. Focus on review_criteria.md Section 5 (Security)
  3. Check for: SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, secrets exposure
  4. Examine dependencies in metadata
  5. Review authentication/authorization changes
  6. Report security findings with severity ratings

Scenario 4: Review with Related Tickets

Trigger: User requests review against linked JIRA/GitHub ticket.

Workflow:

  1. Fetch PR data (captures ticket references)
  2. Read related_issues.json
  3. Compare PR changes against ticket requirements
  4. Verify all acceptance criteria met
  5. Note any missing functionality
  6. Suggest additional tests if needed

Scenario 5: Large PR Review (>400 lines)

Trigger: PR contains more than 400 lines of changes.

Workflow:

  1. Suggest splitting into smaller PRs if feasible
  2. Review in logical chunks by file or feature
  3. Focus on architecture and design first
  4. Document structural concerns before line-level issues
  5. Prioritize security and correctness over style
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink