Draft clear, considerate comments for code reviews, issue replies, and team updates. Put the actionable point first, explain technical reasons when needed, and give a concrete next step while matching the conversation’s language.
Write warm, direct collaboration comments. Trigger: PR feedback, issue replies, reviews, Slack messages, or GitHub comments.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Load this skill whenever you write a comment that another human will read.
Use it for:
| Rule | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Be useful fast | Start with the actionable point. Do not recap the whole PR before feedback. |
| Be warm and direct | Sound like a thoughtful teammate, not a corporate bot. |
| Keep it short | Prefer 1 to 3 short paragraphs or a tight bullet list. |
| Explain why | Give the technical reason when asking for a change. |
| Avoid pile-ons | Comment on the highest-value issue, not every tiny preference. |
| Match target context language | Write in the target context language by default: Spanish issue/thread -> Spanish comment, English issue/thread -> English comment, mixed context -> target message language. If the user explicitly requests a language or tone, follow that request. For Spanish comments, use neutral/professional Spanish by default unless the user or target context clearly calls for regional tone. |
| No em dashes | Use commas, periods, or parentheses instead. |
<Direct observation or request>
<Why it matters, only if needed>
<Concrete next action>
Good approach overall. I'd split this into a separate commit because it mixes validation logic with UI wiring.
That keeps the reviewer's focus narrower and makes rollback cleaner if the integration fails.
Approved. The scope is clear and the change is well-contained.
For the next PR, add links to the previous and following PRs so the chain stays navigable.
This PR exceeds the 400-line budget, so we need to split it or justify `size:exception`.
Suggested order: foundation + tests first, then integration, then docs. That gives each review a clear start and end.
# Inspect a PR before writing review feedback
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json title,body,additions,deletions,changedFiles
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Prepare pull requests by checking approved issue links, change-type labels, and required automated checks. Draft the repository’s PR template using observed test results, while leaving commits, pushes, PR creation, and merging under human control.
Split changes exceeding 400 lines into linked pull requests with clear boundaries and dependencies. Choose a chain structure, keep tests and documentation with each work unit, and document review order, verification plans, and justified size exceptions.
Structure guides, READMEs, design documents, and pull request descriptions so readers can find answers quickly. Put outcomes first, introduce details gradually, and use examples, tables, and checklists to support understanding and review.
Create and verify gentle-ai journeys, which are scripted sequences of product actions. Check their declarations separately from actual execution, review outdated expectations after behavior changes, and record execution results for pull requests.
Prepare Gentle AI changes for review by linking approved issues, following branch and commit naming rules, and drafting pull requests with observed test results. Check change size and required automated checks before claiming readiness.
Split large code changes into linked pull requests, each with a focused scope. Organize their order, dependencies, and verification steps so reviewers can assess one unit of work at a time.