Finding Title
+Use findings for the sharpest judgment calls and risks.
+diff --git a/skills/pr-report/SKILL.md b/skills/pr-report/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5064b67c --- /dev/null +++ b/skills/pr-report/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ +--- +name: pr-report +description: > + Review a pull request or contribution deeply, explain it tutorial-style for a + maintainer, and produce a polished report artifact such as HTML or Markdown. + Use when asked to analyze a PR, explain a contributor's design decisions, + compare it with similar systems, or prepare a merge recommendation. +--- + +# PR Report Skill + +Produce a maintainer-grade review of a PR, branch, or large contribution. + +Default posture: + +- understand the change before judging it +- explain the system as built, not just the diff +- separate architectural problems from product-scope objections +- make a concrete recommendation, not a vague impression + +## When to Use + +Use this skill when the user asks for things like: + +- "review this PR deeply" +- "explain this contribution to me" +- "make me a report or webpage for this PR" +- "compare this design to similar systems" +- "should I merge this?" + +## Outputs + +Common outputs: + +- standalone HTML report in `tmp/reports/...` +- Markdown report in `report/` or another requested folder +- short maintainer summary in chat + +If the user asks for a webpage, build a polished standalone HTML artifact with +clear sections and readable visual hierarchy. + +Resources bundled with this skill: + +- `references/style-guide.md` for visual direction and report presentation rules +- `assets/html-report-starter.html` for a reusable standalone HTML/CSS starter + +## Workflow + +### 1. Acquire and frame the target + +Work from local code when possible, not just the GitHub PR page. + +Gather: + +- target branch or worktree +- diff size and changed subsystems +- relevant repo docs, specs, and invariants +- contributor intent if it is documented in PR text or design docs + +Start by answering: what is this change *trying* to become? + +### 2. Build a mental model of the system + +Do not stop at file-by-file notes. Reconstruct the design: + +- what new runtime or contract exists +- which layers changed: db, shared types, server, UI, CLI, docs +- lifecycle: install, startup, execution, UI, failure, disablement +- trust boundary: what code runs where, under what authority + +For large contributions, include a tutorial-style section that teaches the +system from first principles. + +### 3. Review like a maintainer + +Findings come first. Order by severity. + +Prioritize: + +- behavioral regressions +- trust or security gaps +- misleading abstractions +- lifecycle and operational risks +- coupling that will be hard to unwind +- missing tests or unverifiable claims + +Always cite concrete file references when possible. + +### 4. Distinguish the objection type + +Be explicit about whether a concern is: + +- product direction +- architecture +- implementation quality +- rollout strategy +- documentation honesty + +Do not hide an architectural objection inside a scope objection. + +### 5. Compare to external precedents when needed + +If the contribution introduces a framework or platform concept, compare it to +similar open-source systems. + +When comparing: + +- prefer official docs or source +- focus on extension boundaries, context passing, trust model, and UI ownership +- extract lessons, not just similarities + +Good comparison questions: + +- Who owns lifecycle? +- Who owns UI composition? +- Is context explicit or ambient? +- Are plugins trusted code or sandboxed code? +- Are extension points named and typed? + +### 6. Make the recommendation actionable + +Do not stop at "merge" or "do not merge." + +Choose one: + +- merge as-is +- merge after specific redesign +- salvage specific pieces +- keep as design research + +If rejecting or narrowing, say what should be kept. + +Useful recommendation buckets: + +- keep the protocol/type model +- redesign the UI boundary +- narrow the initial surface area +- defer third-party execution +- ship a host-owned extension-point model first + +### 7. Build the artifact + +Suggested report structure: + +1. Executive summary +2. What the PR actually adds +3. Tutorial: how the system works +4. Strengths +5. Main findings +6. Comparisons +7. Recommendation + +For HTML reports: + +- use intentional typography and color +- make navigation easy for long reports +- favor strong section headings and small reference labels +- avoid generic dashboard styling + +Before building from scratch, read `references/style-guide.md`. +If a fast polished starter is helpful, begin from `assets/html-report-starter.html` +and replace the placeholder content with the actual report. + +### 8. Verify before handoff + +Check: + +- artifact path exists +- findings still match the actual code +- any requested forbidden strings are absent from generated output +- if tests were not run, say so explicitly + +## Review Heuristics + +### Plugin and platform work + +Watch closely for: + +- docs claiming sandboxing while runtime executes trusted host processes +- module-global state used to smuggle React context +- hidden dependence on render order +- plugins reaching into host internals instead of using explicit APIs +- "capabilities" that are really policy labels on top of fully trusted code + +### Good signs + +- typed contracts shared across layers +- explicit extension points +- host-owned lifecycle +- honest trust model +- narrow first rollout with room to grow + +## Final Response + +In chat, summarize: + +- where the report is +- your overall call +- the top one or two reasons +- whether verification or tests were skipped + +Keep the chat summary shorter than the report itself. diff --git a/skills/pr-report/assets/html-report-starter.html b/skills/pr-report/assets/html-report-starter.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000..be6f0550 --- /dev/null +++ b/skills/pr-report/assets/html-report-starter.html @@ -0,0 +1,426 @@ + + +
+ + ++ Replace this with the short explanation of what the contribution does, why it matters, + and what the core maintainer question is. +
+Use cards for mental models, subsystems, or comparison slices.
+Keep cards fairly dense. This template is about style, not fixed structure.
+Use findings for the sharpest judgment calls and risks.
+Use this area for merge guidance, salvage plan, or rollout advice.
+Call out the parts worth preserving even if the whole proposal should not land.
+