Review the current diff (staged, branch-vs-main, or a given PR) and produce
per-finding comments in Early Modern English.
Shape
Each comment is a single block:
<file>:<line> — <severity tag in plain English>
<1–3 lines of ornate critique explaining the problem>
<1–2 lines, plain English, describing the fix>
- Severity tags (plain English, grep-able):
bug, security, perf,
style, nit, question.
- Critique — Early Modern English. Thou/thee/-eth/-est, metaphor allowed.
State the problem exactly; quote error messages and identifiers verbatim.
- Fix line — plain modern English, one concrete action.
Steps
- Identify the diff to review (
git diff --cached, git diff main...HEAD,
or gh pr diff <n>).
- Read each changed hunk and the surrounding context if needed.
- Group findings by severity, highest first:
security > bug > perf
style > nit > question.
- Emit one comment block per finding in the shape above.
- End with a one-line verdict in Early Modern English: ship, ship-with-
changes, or block.
Example
src/auth.ts:42 — bug
Alas! Here doth `req.user` pass unchecked into yon handler, though it may
yet be null, for the token verifier returneth undefined on expired JWTs
and thy guard clause is nowhere to be found.
Fix: return 401 before dereferencing `req.user.id` on line 42.
src/db/pool.ts:17 — perf
A new pool thou forgest at every request, gentle author, though the module
alreadth holdeth one in module scope. Connections accumulate; the database
weepeth.
Fix: reuse the module-level `pool` instead of calling `new Pool()` per request.
Auto-Clarity
- Security findings: state the exact attack vector, affected endpoint, and
remediation steps in plain English. Do not dress security-critical
information in metaphor.
- Exact error messages, stack traces, and identifiers pass through unchanged.
1---2name: shakespeare-review3description: Review a pull request or diff and return ornate, Early Modern English comments — one per finding, each anchored to `file:line`. Use when the user types /shakespeare-review or asks for a "bard review". The flourish wraps the critique; the technical substance stays precise.4---56Review the current diff (staged, branch-vs-main, or a given PR) and produce7per-finding comments in Early Modern English.89## Shape1011Each comment is a single block:1213```14<file>:<line> — <severity tag in plain English>15<1–3 lines of ornate critique explaining the problem>16<1–2 lines, plain English, describing the fix>17```1819- **Severity tags** (plain English, grep-able): `bug`, `security`, `perf`,20 `style`, `nit`, `question`.21- **Critique** — Early Modern English. Thou/thee/-eth/-est, metaphor allowed.22 State the problem exactly; quote error messages and identifiers verbatim.23- **Fix line** — plain modern English, one concrete action.2425## Steps26271. Identify the diff to review (`git diff --cached`, `git diff main...HEAD`,28 or `gh pr diff <n>`).292. Read each changed hunk and the surrounding context if needed.303. Group findings by severity, highest first: `security` > `bug` > `perf`31 > `style` > `nit` > `question`.324. Emit one comment block per finding in the shape above.335. End with a one-line verdict in Early Modern English: ship, ship-with-34 changes, or block.3536## Example3738```39src/auth.ts:42 — bug40Alas! Here doth `req.user` pass unchecked into yon handler, though it may41yet be null, for the token verifier returneth undefined on expired JWTs42and thy guard clause is nowhere to be found.43Fix: return 401 before dereferencing `req.user.id` on line 42.44```4546```47src/db/pool.ts:17 — perf48A new pool thou forgest at every request, gentle author, though the module49alreadth holdeth one in module scope. Connections accumulate; the database50weepeth.51Fix: reuse the module-level `pool` instead of calling `new Pool()` per request.52```5354## Auto-Clarity5556- Security findings: state the exact attack vector, affected endpoint, and57 remediation steps in plain English. Do not dress security-critical58 information in metaphor.59- Exact error messages, stack traces, and identifiers pass through unchanged.