Peer Review

Assist me in reviewing this PR: $ARGUMENTS

Context

Your own login as the reviewer. Everyone else in the diff and threads is either the author, addressed as "you", or a third party (see tone.md). Whichever platform applies resolves. The other reads unavailable.

• GitHub user: !gh api graphql -f query='{viewer{login}}' --jq .data.viewer.login 2>/dev/null | grep . || echo "unavailable"
• GitLab user: !glab api user 2>/dev/null | jq -r .username 2>/dev/null | grep . || echo "unavailable"

Arguments

• --triage: assess the PR for sequencing instead of reviewing it. Produce a one-line summary of what it changes and an estimated review effort, then stop. Default: off, which runs the full review workflow below.

Triage Mode

When --triage is set, stay read-only and assess the PR for sequencing. Gather just enough to judge scope: the PR body, the diff stat, and the files touched. Then report two things and stop.

• What the PR changes, in one line.
• The estimated review effort on the same scale step 4 uses for review:code (low, medium, high, xhigh, max), with one-line reasoning.

If not on the branch, first run gh pr checkout to switch.

Guardrails

• Must check with me before submitting. Show file comments and review comment.
• Don't insist on commenting on every PR. Propose approving with no comment if everything looks good.
• Don't run Python, Ruby, or other interpreters for library introspection. Use Read for source files or WebFetch for documentation instead.
• Do match my writing style. You're commenting as me, not a generic AI assistant.
• Do present technical questions to me for ambiguous code. Don't proceed until you understand fully.

Workflow

1. Research - Gather context and identify participants (see research.md)
2. Context - Determine review context using repository visibility. Private repositories use corporate defaults. Public repositories use open-source defaults. Check visibility via the platform API (gh api repos/OWNER/REPO --jq .visibility or glab api projects/ENCODED_PATH | jq .visibility). If ambiguous, ask me.
3. Review - Examine changed files and existing comments
4. Delegate - Run review:code for code-quality analysis. Summarize the diff (rough line count, files touched, sensitive areas) and signals from the PR body, propose an effort level with one-line reasoning, and confirm via AskUserQuestion before invoking. Skip the call for trivial PRs (docs-only, dep bumps). Effort heuristics:
   • low: docs-only, dep bumps, config tweaks, trivial fixes (<50 lines)
   • medium: typical features or fixes, single module, ~50–500 lines
   • high: large refactors, multi-module, public API or schema changes, ~500–2000 lines
   • xhigh: security-sensitive (auth, payments, data access), breaking changes, migrations
   • max: rare — incident hotfix or change with extreme blast radius
5. Think - Evaluate along two axes. Requirement fulfillment: does the change deliver what was asked (see requirements.md)? Code quality: evaluate against priorities (see priorities.md) and smells (see smells.md), incorporating review:code findings. Keep the axes separate so a clean diff does not mask a missed requirement.
6. Stage - Open the PR diff in tuicr via review:tuicr (tuicr pr <N> for GitHub, tuicr mr <N> for GitLab) and seed proposed comments with tuicr review add (pass --username so they read as agent comments). Capture the PR head SHA (and base/start SHAs for GitLab, from the MR diff_refs) for mapping. Skip staging when approving with no comments.
7. Revise - I curate in the tuicr pane: delete comments I reject, reword, and add my own at any line. The surviving set gets posted.
8. Submit a GitHub PR yourself from the TUI - For a GitHub PR you curated in the tuicr pane, the fastest path is tuicr's own :submit (Comment / Approve / Request changes / Draft), which posts a real PR review via gh. When that fits, skip the map-and-post steps below. Claude maps and posts only for GitLab (tuicr cannot post to GitLab at all) or when the review runs headless with no TUI.
9. Map - When Claude posts, read back the final set (tuicr review comments --repo <repo> --session <slug>) and map each comment to a platform position with review:tuicr's mapping CLI (mapping.ts map --platform <github|gitlab> --comments ... --diff ... --commit <sha>). It runs the in-diff pre-check and returns { payloads, dropped }. Off-diff anchors land in dropped (GitHub rejects them with 422 "Line could not be resolved"), so surface those to me rather than losing them.
10. Post - Show me the mapped set, then on my go post as one batch and choose Approve / Comment / Request Changes based on severity. GitHub: a pending review submitted as a batch. GitLab: draft notes published together.

See tone.md for comment style guidelines.

Service Support

This skill assumes GitHub. For GitLab merge requests, load gitlab:merge-request for the submission workflow; use draft-note.ts submit to publish draft notes with an optional summary and review decision.

tuicr's own :submit is interactive and GitHub-only. When I curate a GitHub PR live in the pane, I submit it there and Claude posts nothing. Claude's programmatic path (mcp__github / gh / glab) covers the two cases tuicr can't: a GitLab MR (tuicr never posts to GitLab) and a headless GitHub run with no TUI. When tuicr is not running or I prefer to skip it, stage nothing and post directly the same way. On follow-up, resolution is native: resolve addressed threads on the platform (review-threads.ts for GitHub, the resolve flow in gitlab:merge-request for GitLab), not tuicr.