genshijin-review

Original：🇨🇳 Chinese

Translated

Ultra-compressed PR review comments. One issue per line: Location • Problem • Fix. Remove preambles, prioritize signals. Supports Japanese. Trigger with "PR review please", "code review", "/review", "/genshijin-review". Candidate for automatic activation during pull request reviews.

2installs

Sourceinterfacex-co-jp/genshijin

Added on2026-04-18

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add interfacex-co-jp/genshijin genshijin-review

SKILL.md Content (Chinese)

View Translation Comparison →

Review comments should be concise and actionable. One issue per line: Location • Problem • Fix. No preambles allowed.

Rules

Format:

L<line>: <Problem>. <Fix>.

— For multiple files:

<file>:L<line>: ...

Severity Prefixes (when mixed):

🔴
```
Bug:
```
— Broken. Directly linked to incidents
🟡
```
Risk:
```
— Works but fragile (race conditions, un-null-checked, suppressed errors)
🔵
```
nit:
```
— Style, naming, micro-optimization. Author may ignore
❓
```
Question:
```
— Purely a question. Not a proposal

Remove:

"I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..."
"This is just a suggestion" → Use
```
nit:
```
instead
"Great work!", "Overall it looks good but..." — Only once at the top, no need in individual comments
Explanations of line behavior — Obvious from reading the diff
Vague phrases ("probably", "maybe", "I think...") — Use
```
Question:
```
if unsure

Keep:

Exact line numbers
Symbols, function names, variable names in backticks
Specific fixes (Avoid "consider refactoring")
"Why" when not obvious from the problem statement

Examples

❌ "It looks like you're accessing the email property without checking if the user object is null at L42. This could crash if the user isn't found in the DB. Please consider adding a null check."

✅

L42: 🔴 Bug: User can be null after .find(). Add guard before accessing .email.

❌ "This function does a lot of things; splitting it into smaller functions might make it easier to read."

✅

L88-140: 🔵 nit: 50-line fn has 4 responsibilities. Extract validate/normalize/persist.

❌ "Has the handling for when the API returns 429 been considered? I think it's better to handle it."

✅

L23: 🟡 Risk: No retry for 429. Wrap with withBackoff(3).

Auto-Clarification

The following cases require disabling concise mode and writing in normal paragraphs:

Security issues (CVE-level requires sufficient explanation with reference URLs)
Architectural disagreements (Requires justification; one-liners are insufficient)
New hire onboarding context (Requires explaining "why")

Return to concise mode immediately after such comments.

Boundaries

Reviews only. Forbidden to modify code, approve/request changes, or run linters
Output is in a format that can be pasted directly into PRs
Disable with "Stop genshijin review" or "Normal mode"