# Review Brief

Produce a scannable review brief for a branch or PR so the maintainer can approve...

- Repository: https://github.com/every-app/open-seo (25988 stars)
- Category: Git and review
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-10-31
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add every-app/open-seo --skill review-brief -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add every-app/open-seo --skill review-brief -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add every-app/open-seo --skill review-brief -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add every-app/open-seo --skill review-brief -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add every-app/open-seo`

## Description

Produce a scannable review brief for a branch or PR so the maintainer can approve without reading the whole diff. Use when the user asks "how do I review this", "summarize the changes", "what should I look at", or wants to understand a PR in under two minutes.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# Review brief

The reader will not read the diff. They will skim for 30 seconds, then read only
the code that could hurt them. Optimize for that.

## Process

1. Get the diff (`git log --oneline main..HEAD`, `git diff --stat main..HEAD`) and
   read every non-trivial changed file in full.
2. Find the invariant core: what was broken, what is true now. One sentence.
3. Classify every hunk. Anything matching the crucial criteria below goes into
   the code section verbatim. Everything else gets one table row or is folded.
4. Write the brief in the layout below. Every line number cited must be verified
   against the working tree.
5. Run a second agent as a reviewer of the CODE, not the prose: "what is wrong,
   overstated, or missing?" Fix real bugs before delivering, and say you did.

## Crucial code criteria

A hunk is crucial and must be shown as code if it touches any of:

- **Schema.** Drizzle tables, columns, indexes, migrations, Zod schemas at a
  trust boundary, MCP tool input or output schemas.
- **Database writes.** New or changed INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, conditional WHERE
  clauses, anything that runs inside a workflow step or a cron.
- **Security.** Auth checks, scope or org or project gating, secrets, external
  calls with credentials, anything that fails open.
- **Core logic.** The branch or expression that decides the outcome the bug was
  about: a status assignment, a validation gate, a ranking comparator, a retry
  or timeout policy.
- **Jank.** Anything you would be embarrassed to defend in review. String-matching
  a vendor error message to pick UI copy. A regex standing in for a parser. A
  hard-coded lookup table. A `console.warn` where a metric belongs. A swallowed
  catch. A magic timeout. A DB read added to work around a missing parameter.
  A fallback that quietly changes behaviour. Show it, name it as jank in the
  sentence above, and say whether it is acceptable for now or should block.

The rest: https://github.com/every-app/open-seo/blob/HEAD/.agents/skills/review-brief/SKILL.md