Prepare for review

Prepare a pull request for review

Follow the delivery and review protocol in AGENTS.md. This skill prepares a reviewable handoff; it never merges a PR.

1. Inspect before changing PR state

Gather evidence, do not rely on the existing PR description:

git status --short --branch
git fetch origin
git diff --stat origin/main...HEAD
git diff origin/main...HEAD
git log --oneline origin/main..HEAD
gh pr view --json number,title,url,isDraft,baseRefName,headRefName,mergeable,mergeStateStatus,reviewDecision,reviewRequests,statusCheckRollup,body
gh pr list --state open --json number,title,url,isDraft,reviewDecision,reviewRequests
gh pr checks

If the PR targets a base other than main, compare against that base instead. Inspect the complete diff, including generated files and lockfiles. If the branch has no PR, complete the initial classification and verification, then create a draft PR using the applicable template. Never open a new PR as ready for review.

Classify and record:

• one user outcome;
• intended customer journey and affected cohort;
• the owning architectural layer;
• dependencies and whether they are merged;
• workstream, dependency graph, lane, and semantic conflict domains;
• public contracts changed;
• risk domains and failure modes;
• deliberately excluded scope;
• changed-file count and additions.

2. Apply the readiness gates

Keep the PR draft and explain the next action when any gate fails:

• The branch has conflicts, failed or pending required CI, or an unmerged dependency.
• A product or architecture decision required by this PR remains unresolved. Propose a small decision PR using the decision template. Keep this PR to discovery or an explicitly disposable prototype; do not prepare production foundations or implementation for review.
• The diff combines independent outcomes or separable high-risk domains. Propose concrete PR slices.
• The review brief is incomplete or does not match the diff.
• The agent has not inspected the complete diff.
• The PR exceeds 1,000 additions or 20 files without a credible split rationale.

Do not use line count alone to demand a split. Keep tests, fixtures, directly related docs, and generated artefacts with the feature they validate.

3. Verify

For code, configuration, fixtures, generated artefacts, or runtime changes:

npm run check:change -- --base origin/main
npm run verify

For a documentation/instruction-only PR:

git diff --check origin/main...HEAD
git diff --name-only origin/main...HEAD

Confirm the docs-only path list contains only Markdown, agent skills, instruction files, or GitHub community files. Do not claim checks passed unless you ran them. Record failures and uncertainty in the PR body.

The coding agent owns failures caused by its branch. Inspect failed CI, make the smallest scoped repair, rerun the relevant local proof, push when authorised, and watch the replacement checks before requesting review. Do not hand a known branch-caused CI failure to the reviewer as an undiagnosed problem.

4. Write the review brief

Update the PR body to follow the applicable template under .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/. Make the brief concise and evidence-based.

The body must state:

• the user outcome and exact reviewer decision or focus;
• mode: decision, implementation, or ready-to-merge;
• intended customer journey and any changed product assumption;
• owning layer, contracts changed, and dependencies;
• workstream, lane, dependency graph, and merge order when multi-PR;
• risk domains, failure modes, out-of-scope items, and split rationale;
• documentation, examples, tool descriptions, roadmap status, or release notes checked or updated;
• verification commands and results;
• what the coding agent inspected and what remains uncertain;
• exact questions or decisions for the reviewer, especially around abstraction, ownership boundaries, or live-proof gaps.

Optionally include a Delivery-system learning when this work produced concrete evidence for a process improvement. Keep it to observation, evidence, and the smallest proposed update. Omit it when there is no meaningful lesson, and do not add unrelated governance edits to the PR.

Use gh pr edit --body-file <file> after preparing the body in a temporary file. Do not hide failed checks, conflicts, unresolved decisions, or dependency status.

5. Enter the review queue

Risk-based review is required for:

• public MCP/domain contracts or shared/core behaviour;
• cross-network semantics;
• authentication, credentials, privacy, or security;
• write actions, browser automation, consent, or audit behaviour;
• payments, licensing, releases, or deployment architecture;
• cross-client architecture or Claude/Codex parity decisions;
• product-direction decisions with implementation consequences.

Inspect all open PRs and apply the canonical lanes from AGENTS.md. Another PR occupies active-risk when it is open, not draft, in a risk-based category, and awaiting deliberate maintainer judgement. If the risk lane is occupied, keep this PR draft as queued-risk and report which PR is ahead of it. Routine work may enter review concurrently only when fewer than two routine PRs are active, all required decisions are merged, public contracts are preserved, and the owning domains do not conflict.

When every gate passes:

1. Mark the PR ready with gh pr ready.
2. For external contributor PRs, request the relevant CODEOWNER or maintainer.
3. For Rob-authored risk-based PRs, do not request @offmann. Ask for an independent agent review in the PR body or a follow-up comment, and make the decision question explicit for Rob.
4. For routine isolated changes, mark ready without requesting a reviewer unless repository settings require one.
5. Report the PR URL, verification evidence, lane, dependency status, risk classification, and reviewer or independent-agent review requested.

Never approve or merge the PR yourself unless Rob or another maintainer has explicitly asked you to merge that specific PR after readiness is established.

6. Respond to review

For each blocking review finding, reply with one of:

• fixed: name the commit and proof run;
• needs decision: state the smallest unresolved choice;
• not changing: explain the evidence-based reason and leave the thread open for the reviewer.

After fixes, rerun the affected checks plus npm run check:change -- --base origin/main, update the PR body's verification and uncertainty sections, and request re-review. Do not introduce unrelated cleanup while addressing review.