refactor(claude): Simplify code-review command to use reviewing-changes skill

This commit simplifies the `code-review` command by delegating the core logic to the new `reviewing-changes` skill.

The previous verbose template, which included detailed instructions and a complex output format for manual reviews, has been removed. The new implementation directly invokes the `reviewing-changes` skill with the pull request URL.

Specific changes include:
- Replaced the extensive review template in `.claude/commands/code-review.md` with a simpler command definition.
- The command now accepts a PR URL as its primary argument.
- It is explicitly defined to use the `reviewing-changes` skill for the review process.
- Output requirements are now specified to be written to `pr-review-summary.md` and `pr-review-inline-comments.md`.
This commit is contained in:
Patrick Honkonen 2026-01-14 22:33:00 -05:00
parent e5d887edf8
commit 00bf96bcd4
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 27C65CF8B03CC9FB

View File

@ -1,82 +1,19 @@
Use this template to review a PR diff with focused, actionable feedback.
---
description: Initiate a code review on a specific pull request, using the `reviewing-changes` skill.
argument-hint: PR URL
version: 1.0.0
---
## INPUTS
- PR diff - the pull request diff to review
- (optional) PR description
- (optional) Ticket links
- PR
## INSTRUCTIONS
1. Scan the PR diff for correctness, style, security, and performance.
2. Ground comments in the project context (frameworks, languages, databases, messaging systems).
3. Prefer specific inline suggestions with minimal working patches.
4. Flag test gaps and missing docs. Propose concrete test cases.
5. Label severity: Blocker, Major, Minor, Nit.
6. Keep lines ≤80 chars.
Use the `reviewing-changes` skill to review pull request $1. This is a local code review, do not post any feedback to GitHub.
## OUTPUT FORMAT
### Summary
- **Scope:**
- **Impact:**
- **Risk level:**
### Positives
- **Code quality wins:**
- **Good patterns:**
- **Tests/documentation:**
### Issues by Severity
#### Blockers
- [file:line] Problem → Why it matters → Fix suggestion
```
// patchlet
```
#### Major
- ...
#### Minor
- ...
#### Nits
- ...
### Security & Compliance
- **Authentication/authorization:**
- **Input validation/injection prevention:**
- **Secrets/logging/sensitive data:**
- **Third-party integrations:**
- **Data privacy/compliance:**
### Performance
- **Hot paths:**
- **Database query optimization:**
- **Caching/TTL:**
- **Async/concurrency handling:**
### Testing Gaps
- **Unit:**
- **Integration/e2e:**
- **Property/fuzz:**
- **Load/reliability:**
### Documentation
- **Changelog:**
- **Architecture notes:**
- **README/code comments:**
### Inline Review
- [file path]
- line X: comment
- line Y: comment
### Review Checklist
- [ ] Builds/CI green
- [ ] Lint/format pass
- [ ] Tests updated/added
- [ ] Backward compatible
- [ ] Feature flagged
- [ ] Observability added
- Overall summary must be written to `pr-review-summary.md`.
- Inline comments must be written to `pr-review-inline-comments.md`.
- Output files must be written, even if there are no issues found.