comprehensive-review-pr-enhance — quality + safety report
In the Skillier index (antigravity__comprehensive-review-pr-enhance) · scanned 2026-06-03 · engine: builtin+triage
1 heuristic flag to review
Heuristic flags from the builtin scanner, which is known to over-flag (it trips on legitimate env-reading integrations, security skills, and library .eval calls). This is NOT an authoritative malicious verdict — re-scan with SkillSpector for the authoritative result. Run the authoritative scan →
📇 This skill is in the Skillier index (curated · deduped · quality-filtered). Install Skillier to route & load it into your AI client.
Quality notes
No quality issues flagged. ✓
About this skill
Generate structured PR descriptions from diffs, add review checklists, risk assessments, and test coverage summaries. Use when the user says "write a PR description", "improve this PR", "summarize my changes", "PR review", "pull request", or asks to document a diff for reviewers.
📄 Read the SKILL.md
--- name: comprehensive-review-pr-enhance description: > Generate structured PR descriptions from diffs, add review checklists, risk assessments, and test coverage summaries. Use when the user says "write a PR description", "improve this PR", "summarize my changes", "PR review", "pull request", or asks to document a diff for reviewers. risk: unknown source: community --- # Pull Request Enhancement ## When to Use - You need to turn a git diff into a reviewer-friendly pull request description. - You want a PR summary with change categories, risks, testing notes, and a checklist. - The diff is large enough that reviewers need explicit structure instead of a short ad hoc summary. ## Workflow 1. Run `git diff <base>...HEAD --stat` to identify changed files and scope 2. Categorise changes: source, test, config, docs, build, styles 3. Generate the PR description using the template below 4. Add a review checklist based on which file categories changed 5. Flag breaking changes, security-sensitive files, or large diffs (>500 lines) ## PR Description Template ```markdown ## Summary <!-- one-paragraph executive summary: what changed and why --> ## Changes | Category | Files | Key change | |----------|-------|------------| | source | `src/auth.ts` | added OAuth2 PKCE flow | | test | `tests/auth.test.ts` | covers token refresh edge case | | config | `.env.example` | new `OAUTH_CLIENT_ID` var | ## Why <!-- link to issue/ticket + one sentence on motivation --> ## Testing - [ ] unit tests pass (`npm test`) - [ ] manual smoke test on staging - [ ] no coverage regression ## Risks & Rollback - **Breaking?** yes / no - **Rollback**: revert this commit; no migration needed - **Risk level**: low / medium / high — because ___ ``` ## Review Checklist Rules Add checklist sections only when the matching file category appears in the diff: | File category | Checklist items | |---------------|----------------| | source | no debug statements, functions <50 lines, descriptive names, error handling | | test | meaningful assertions, edge cases, no flaky tests, AAA pattern | | config | no hardcoded secrets, env vars documented, backwards compatible | | docs | accurate, examples included, changelog updated | | security-sensitive (`auth`, `crypto`, `token`, `password` in path) | input validation, no secrets in logs, authz correct | ## Splitting Large PRs When diff exceeds 20 files or 1000 lines, suggest splitting by feature area: ``` git checkout -b feature/part-1 git cherry-pick <commits-for-part-1> ``` ## Resources - `resources/implementation-playbook.md` — Python helpers for automated PR analysis, coverage reports, and risk scoring ## Limitations - Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above. - Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review. - Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.
Want a live grade + an embeddable README badge? Run your skill through the free scanner.
Graded independently by Skillproof — nothing to sell the author. Quality is mechanical + corpus-grounded; safety flags are heuristic (builtin+triage), not a malicious verdict.