personal-projects/leo-claude-mktplace
Template
0
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

refactor(clarity-assist): extract skills from commands

Browse Source 
Extract shared knowledge from clarify.md and quick-clarify.md into
reusable skill files:
- 4d-methodology.md: Core 4-phase clarification process
- nd-accommodations.md: Neurodivergent-friendly question patterns
- clarification-techniques.md: Anti-patterns and question templates
- escalation-patterns.md: Mode switching guidelines

Commands slimmed from 149/96 lines to 44/49 lines respectively.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Leo Miranda
2026-01-30 17:23:40 -05:00
parent 747a2b15e5
commit 5bf1271347
18 changed files with 1067 additions and 1141 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

144
plugins/pr-review/commands/pr-review.md
View File

@@ -2,19 +2,14 @@
## Visual Output
When executing this command, display the plugin header:
Display header: `PR-REVIEW - Full Review`
```
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 🔍 PR-REVIEW · Full Review │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
## Skills to Load
Then proceed with the review.
## Purpose
Conduct a comprehensive pull request review using specialized agents for security, performance, maintainability, and test coverage.
- skills/mcp-tools-reference.md
- skills/review-workflow.md
- skills/review-patterns/confidence-scoring.md
- skills/output-formats.md
## Usage
@@ -22,132 +17,37 @@ Conduct a comprehensive pull request review using specialized agents for securit
/pr-review <pr-number> [--repo owner/repo]
```
## Behavior
## Workflow
### Step 1: Fetch PR Data
Using Gitea MCP tools:
1. `get_pull_request` - PR metadata
2. `get_pr_diff` - Code changes
3. `get_pr_comments` - Existing discussion
Load MCP tools, then: `get_pull_request`, `get_pr_diff`, `get_pr_comments`
### Step 2: Dispatch to Agents
The coordinator dispatches review tasks to specialized agents:
Execute `skills/review-workflow.md` - dispatch to Security, Performance, Maintainability, Test agents
```
PR Review: #123 - Add user authentication
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
### Step 3: Aggregate and Filter
Dispatching to review agents:
├─ Security Reviewer → analyzing...
├─ Performance Analyst → analyzing...
├─ Maintainability Auditor → analyzing...
└─ Test Validator → analyzing...
```
Apply confidence threshold (default: 0.7). See `skills/review-patterns/confidence-scoring.md`
### Step 3: Aggregate Findings
### Step 4: Generate Report
Collect findings from all agents, each with:
- Category (security, performance, maintainability, tests)
- Severity (critical, major, minor, suggestion)
- Confidence score (0.0 - 1.0)
- File and line reference
- Description
- Suggested fix (if applicable)
Use format from `skills/output-formats.md`. Group by severity: critical > major > minor > suggestion
### Step 4: Filter by Confidence
### Step 5: Determine Verdict
Filter findings based on `PR_REVIEW_CONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD` (default: 0.7):
| Confidence | Label | Description |
|------------|-------|-------------|
| 0.9 - 1.0 | HIGH | Definite issue, must address |
| 0.7 - 0.89 | MEDIUM | Likely issue, should address |
| 0.5 - 0.69 | LOW | Possible concern, consider addressing |
| < threshold | (filtered) | Below configured threshold |
**Note:** With the default threshold of 0.7, only MEDIUM and HIGH confidence findings are shown. Adjust `PR_REVIEW_CONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD` to include more or fewer findings.
### Step 5: Generate Report
```
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
PR Review Report: #123
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
Summary:
Files changed: 12
Lines added: 234
Lines removed: 45
Findings: 8 total
🔴 Critical: 1
🟠 Major: 2
🟡 Minor: 3
💡 Suggestions: 2
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
CRITICAL FINDINGS
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
[SEC-001] SQL Injection Vulnerability (Confidence: 0.95)
File: src/api/users.ts:45
Category: Security
The query uses string interpolation without parameterization:
```ts
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;
```
Suggested fix:
```ts
const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?';
db.query(query, [userId]);
```
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
MAJOR FINDINGS
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
[PERF-001] N+1 Query Pattern (Confidence: 0.82)
...
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
VERDICT
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
❌ REQUEST_CHANGES
This PR has 1 critical security issue that must be addressed
before merging. See SEC-001 above.
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
```
- Any critical or 2+ major: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Only minor/suggestions: COMMENT
- No significant findings: APPROVE
### Step 6: Submit Review (Optional)
```
Submit this review to Gitea?
1. Yes, with REQUEST_CHANGES
2. Yes, as COMMENT only
3. No, just show me the report
```
If yes, use `create_pr_review` MCP tool.
## Output
Full review report with:
- Summary statistics
- Findings grouped by severity
- Code snippets with context
- Suggested fixes
- Overall verdict
Ask user to submit as REQUEST_CHANGES, COMMENT, or skip. Use `create_pr_review` MCP tool.
## Configuration
| Variable | Default | Description |
|----------|---------|-------------|
| `PR_REVIEW_CONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD` | `0.7` | Minimum confidence to report (0.0-1.0) |
| `PR_REVIEW_AUTO_SUBMIT` | `false` | Auto-submit to Gitea |
| Variable | Default |
|----------|---------|
| `PR_REVIEW_CONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD` | `0.7` |
| `PR_REVIEW_AUTO_SUBMIT` | `false` |