Results for “branch-review”

Reviews local branch changes for bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues using a structured checklist and attack surface mapping.

Runs external LLM code reviews (OpenAI Codex or Google Gemini CLI) on uncommitted changes, branch diffs, or specific commits.

I'm ready to help you review code changes on your branch for bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues.

Reviews local branch changes for bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues, using a structured checklist and verification process.

Review code changes for bugs, regressions, convention violations, and high-value cleanup opportunities. Use for diffs, commit ranges, hosted PR/MR URLs, branches, paths, staged changes, or working-tree changes.

Embed before/after screenshots and annotated images in pull request descriptions to help reviewers see visual changes without checking out the branch.

Reviews local branch changes for bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues, producing a prioritized report with severity ratings and concrete fixes.

Handles git and GitHub operations using the gh CLI, triggered by any github.com URL. Covers creating and reviewing PRs, watching CI checks, interactive rebasing, branch cleanup, submodule management, and repository archaeology.

Git workflow automation and guidance for Nick's multi-project workflow, especially repos in ~/Projects/. Use when doing git commits, status checks, branching, merges, rebases, reviewing dirty working trees, cleaning branch flow, or managing multiple repos. Enforce conventional commits and safer git habits.

Split current work into small reviewable PRs. Use when the user asks to split a chat, set of changes, branch, or PR.

Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.

Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. Use when asked to "review this PR", "code review", "pre-landing review", or "check my diff". Proactively suggest when the user is about to merge or land code changes. (gstack)

Generate a PR description from the current branch's changes against a GitHub PR, using the gh CLI. Use when writing, drafting, or updating pull request descriptions, PR summaries, or PR bodies. Does not review code or post review comments — use code-review for local review or post-code-review-to-pr for posting a review to GitHub.

`analysis-agent`/`task-agent`/`review-agent`: use when logic, rules, invariants, branches, edges, or failure paths need isolated tests; skip without a unit-test decision.

Generates unit tests for code changed in the current branch by comparing against origin/main and following existing test conventions.

Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.

Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.

Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.

Turn a PR, branch, commit, or git diff into an interactive visual recap with diagrams, file maps, API/schema summaries, annotated diffs, and focused review notes.

Interviews users relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree.

Reviews code using pi CLI with read-only tools. Delegates the review to pi (dev/pi) with a structured review rubric, running in read-only mode to prevent accidental edits. By default reviews uncommitted working tree changes (git diff HEAD) with pi restricted to the read tool; explicit targets (--branch/--diff/@file/PR) or --explore widen pi to read,grep,find,ls. Use when the user asks to "review code with pi", "pi review", "have pi review", "let pi review", or invokes /pi:review.

Route local Git work into the safest next move: branch hygiene, selective staging, commit cleanup, merge-vs-rebase choice, conflict resolution, lease-safe pushes, and recovery from resets or bad history edits. Use when the user needs help preparing a branch, cleaning up commits, syncing with an updated base, resolving local Git conflicts, pushing rewritten history safely, recovering lost commits, or getting a diff ready for review. Not for hosted PR review, repo administration, or sprint planning.

Help address review/issue comments on the open GitHub PR for the current branch using gh CLI; verify gh auth first and prompt the user to authenticate if not logged in.

Create, refresh, and rewrite PR titles and descriptions following Sentry conventions, focusing on reviewer-facing content that describes the full branch diff.

Run a standard Claude Code review of local git changes in this repository. Args: --wait, --background, --base <ref>, --scope <auto|working-tree|branch>, --model <model>, --effort <low|medium|high|xhigh|max>. Defaults to opus + xhigh effort. Use as the default path for ordinary code-review requests when the user did not explicitly ask for stronger adversarial scrutiny or for Claude to own the implementation work.

Guides a coding agent through the full GitHub pull request lifecycle: branch, commit, open PR, monitor CI, fix failures, merge, and clean up, using either the gh CLI or git plus curl.

General GitHub workflow — branching, commits, pull requests, code review, secrets hygiene, submodules, and git worktrees. Use when the user wants to save changes, push to GitHub, open a PR, work with a submodule, set up a worktree, or perform any git/GitHub operation.

Use when planning an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) project timeline from venue fit through the abstract and full-paper deadlines, the long summer wait to the August notification, the no-rebuttal review, the possible short-paper acceptance branch, IEEE camera-ready, and in-person presentation on a single annual deadline.

Use when planning a full ISCA campaign on a calendar — working back from the expected mid-November abstract and paper deadlines to freeze simulation evidence in time, staffing the winter two-round review wait, preparing for the February-March rebuttal and revision window, and branching to camera-ready, artifacts, and the June conference.

Designs complete email automation sequences with timing, subject lines, copy, and conditional logic. Supports welcome series, nurture campaigns, re-engagement, abandoned cart, post-purchase, review requests, and custom sequences. Adapts sequence type, cadence, frameworks, and conditional branching to business context. Use when user wants to create an automated email series triggered by subscriber actions or time intervals.

Walks a person through code changes one step at a time in conversation, starting at the entry point and following the flow that changes, showing a small chunk per step and explaining it in plain language. Defaults to the current branch's changes, and walks the code from the perspective of any context provided instead — a file, directory, symbol, pull request, plan, or ticket. Use when someone wants to be walked through, taught, paced through, or shown around code or a branch step by step, or to learn how a change works before reviewing or extending it. Stops after every step and waits, so the learner sets the pace. Paces through code that already exists and builds nothing — to build new work while being paced through it, use pairing. Does not produce a written overview to read alone — use code-overview. Does not review code quality — use code-review. Does not diagnose bugs — use investigate.

Produce a standalone test plan by analyzing code for test coverage gaps and edge cases. Use when you need to create, generate, or draft a test plan for a branch, need to analyze test coverage, or need to identify what tests to write for specific files or directories. Does not produce a plain-language plan for a person to run tests by hand — use manual-test-planning for that. Does not write test code — use tdd to implement behavior test-first. Does not refine existing plans — use iterative-plan-review. Does not review code quality, security, or style — use code-review for full code review. Does not evaluate architectural testability or structural coupling — use architectural-analysis for architectural assessment.

Ship workflow: detect + merge base branch, run tests, review diff, bump VERSION, update CHANGELOG, commit, push, create PR. Use when asked to "ship", "deploy", "push to main", "create a PR", "merge and push", or "get it deployed". Proactively invoke this skill (do NOT push/PR directly) when the user says code is ready, asks about deploying, wants to push code up, or asks to create a PR. (gstack)

Run the full autonomous shipping pipeline end-to-end, hands-off with no check-ins: plan, implement, review and fix, commit, push a branch, open a PR, and watch CI to green. Use only when the user explicitly asks to build or ship something autonomously all the way to an open PR, or invokes lfg directly — it pushes and opens a PR without stopping. Not for in-the-loop work where the user reviews each step: use ce-plan to plan, ce-work to implement a plan, ce-debug to fix a bug, or ce-commit-push-pr to commit and open a PR for existing changes.

Produce a plain-language manual test plan from the context supplied to it — an executive summary, a high-level list of named tests, and a detail section per test with the steps a person follows by hand and the outcomes they should expect. Use when you want to create, draft, generate, or outline a manual test plan, manual QA steps, hands-on verification steps, or an acceptance walkthrough for a feature, change, branch, plan, or PR. When the plan holds more than five tests and at least two natural categories emerge, both the test list and the detail sections are organized under plain-language categories. When nothing in the supplied context can be manually tested, it says so and asks for more context instead of producing a document. Does not analyze code for automated test coverage gaps — use automated-test-planning. Does not write test code — use tdd. Does not review code quality — use code-review. Does not stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review.

Single entrypoint for taw-kit. User types `/taw <anything in VN or EN>` — this skill classifies the intent (BUILD / FIX / SHIP / MAINTAIN / ADVISOR) and loads the matching branch file to execute. Replaces the old one-command-per-task model (/taw-new, /taw-add, /taw-fix, /taw-deploy, /taw-security) with a single unified command. Supports dev workflows out of the box: test, upgrade, clean, perf, rollback, refactor, types, seed, review, stack-swap, status, and ADVISOR group (analyze, suggest, coverage, adversarial, scope-check) for opinionated review of existing code. User-visible strings match the user's input language (Vietnamese by default for VN users). Two modes: SAFE (default — clarify + approval, max 1 round-trip) and YOLO (skip gates, smart defaults — for demos/power users). YOLO triggers: prose contains `yolo`, `nhanh nha`, `lam luon`, `khoi hoi`, `auto`, or args start with `yolo`. Trigger phrases (EN + VN) — broad match so user can keep typing plain prose without re-invoking /taw every turn. Grouped by