PR Review Skill
Review pull requests against repository standards. Two-phase process: automated validation, then manual content review.
Phase 1: Automated Validation (Hard Rules)
Run the validation script to check structural requirements:
python .claude/skills/pr-review/scripts/validate_skills.py
The script checks:
SKILL.md exists in every skill directory- YAML frontmatter is parseable
- Required fields present:
name, description
name matches directory name- No hardcoded secrets detected
All ERROR-level checks must pass. WARNING-level items (missing license, metadata) should be flagged but are not blockers.
See references/structure-rules.md for the complete hard rules specification.
Phase 2: Content Review (Soft Guidelines)
After automated checks pass, review the PR against quality guidelines:
- Skill scope — Does it overlap with existing skills? Is the boundary clear?
- Description quality — Does the
description include clear trigger conditions?
- File size — Are reference docs reasonably sized for context window consumption?
- API key handling — If external APIs are used, are credentials read from environment variables?
- Script quality — Do scripts have shebang, requirements.txt, and error handling?
- Language — Are SKILL.md and code written in English?
- README sync — Are
README.md and README_zh.md updated for new skills?
See references/quality-guidelines.md for soft guidelines details.
Review Checklist Summary
Must Pass (Blockers)
Should Pass (Flagged in Review)
---
name: pr-review
description: Review pull requests against repository standards using automated validation and manual content review.
license: MIT
---
# PR Review Skill
Review pull requests against repository standards. Two-phase process: automated validation, then manual content review.
## Phase 1: Automated Validation (Hard Rules)
Run the validation script to check structural requirements:
```bash
python .claude/skills/pr-review/scripts/validate_skills.py
```
The script checks:
- `SKILL.md` exists in every skill directory
- YAML frontmatter is parseable
- Required fields present: `name`, `description`
- `name` matches directory name
- No hardcoded secrets detected
All ERROR-level checks must pass. WARNING-level items (missing `license`, `metadata`) should be flagged but are not blockers.
See [references/structure-rules.md](references/structure-rules.md) for the complete hard rules specification.
## Phase 2: Content Review (Soft Guidelines)
After automated checks pass, review the PR against quality guidelines:
1. **Skill scope** — Does it overlap with existing skills? Is the boundary clear?
2. **Description quality** — Does the `description` include clear trigger conditions?
3. **File size** — Are reference docs reasonably sized for context window consumption?
4. **API key handling** — If external APIs are used, are credentials read from environment variables?
5. **Script quality** — Do scripts have shebang, requirements.txt, and error handling?
6. **Language** — Are SKILL.md and code written in English?
7. **README sync** — Are `README.md` and `README_zh.md` updated for new skills?
See [references/quality-guidelines.md](references/quality-guidelines.md) for soft guidelines details.
## Review Checklist Summary
### Must Pass (Blockers)
- [ ] `validate_skills.py` exits with code 0
- [ ] PR title follows conventional commit format
- [ ] One PR, one purpose
### Should Pass (Flagged in Review)
- [ ] No functional overlap with existing skills
- [ ] Description includes trigger conditions
- [ ] Files are reasonably sized
- [ ] API keys via environment variables
- [ ] README tables updated for new skills (Source column set to `Community`)
