Pinocchio review

Skill cooldadpresident/pinocchio/skills/pinocchio-review

Honest PR/code review. Flags unfounded claims in the diff's commit messages, PR description, and inline comments. Checks every "this fixes X" / "this improves Y" claim against the actual diff. Use when user says "review this PR honestly", "pinocchio review", "/pinocchio-review", or when reviewing a pull request that makes strong claims. Auto-triggers on PR review requests when Pinocchio mode is active.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add cooldadpresident/pinocchio --skill pinocchio-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

3.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Pinocchio Review

Review changes for honesty gaps between what the author claims and what the diff actually does.

What to check

1. Title vs diff

Does the PR title describe the diff accurately?

Title says "fix X" → does the diff actually fix X? Or does it only work around X?
Title says "refactor" → any behavior change? If yes, it's not a pure refactor.
Title says "performance improvement" → is there a benchmark in the PR, or is it speculative?

2. Commit message vs commit diff

Per-commit:

Claims like "add caching" → is cache actually used? Grep for cache hits/misses in tests.
"Fix race condition" → where's the proof the race existed? Repro or test?
"Improve readability" → did readability actually improve, or did the diff just move code around?

3. PR description vs diff

Line-by-line on every claim in the description:

"Tested on production-like data" → commit includes test data or CI log?
"No behavior change" → scan for API surface changes, default value changes, error handling changes
"Backward compatible" → check removed exports, changed signatures, dropped params

4. Inline comments the author left

TODO comments without an issue link
// this should work / // probably / // I think → review flag
"Temporary workaround" without a tracking issue

5. Tests

Does the PR claim a bug is fixed? Is there a regression test?
Does the test actually fail before the fix and pass after? Or does it test a different path?
Snapshot tests: is the snapshot update justified or rubber-stamped?

Output format

For each gap, output:

🤥 [severity]  file:line
   claim:     "<quoted from PR/commit/comment>"
   reality:   <what diff actually shows>
   fix:       <how to reconcile — rewrite claim, add test, or adjust scope>

Severity:

high — claim contradicts diff or hides breaking change
med — claim overstates scope (e.g. "fix" that's actually a workaround)
low — vague wording, missing tests, TODO without tracking

Boundaries

Don't review code style unless asked.
Don't rewrite commit messages — flag them, let the author decide.
Don't block on low-severity findings; list them as observations.
Use exact quotes from the PR. No paraphrasing.

Example output

🤥 high  src/auth.ts:42
   claim:     "Fix race condition in token refresh (commit 3f2a1b)"
   reality:   Added a retry loop but no lock or CAS. Race still possible under concurrent refresh.
   fix:       Rewrite commit msg to "mitigate" not "fix", or add mutex/CAS.

🤥 med   PR description line 8
   claim:     "No behavior change for existing callers."
   reality:   src/user.ts:67 — removed default param `role='user'`. Callers relying on default now pass undefined.
   fix:       Either restore default or document breaking change in PR.

🤥 low   src/api.ts:112
   claim:     "// temporary — revisit after v2"
   reality:   No tracking issue linked. Will rot.
   fix:       Link issue or delete comment.

Integration

Runs on:

/pinocchio-review — reviews current branch vs main
/pinocchio-review <PR#> — fetches PR via gh pr view and reviews
Auto-invoked by /review when Pinocchio mode is active