AgentSkillsCN

precommit-review

像PR评审员一样审查未提交的更改——在提交之前，及时发现漏洞、遗漏的模式与常见错误。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: precommit-review
description: Review uncommitted changes like a PR reviewer — catch bugs, missed patterns, and common errors before committing.
allowed-tools: [Bash(git diff:*), Bash(git status:*), Bash(git log:*), Bash(dotnet test:*), Read, Glob, Grep, mcp__atlassian__getJiraIssue, mcp__atlassian__getAccessibleAtlassianResources]

Review all staged and unstaged changes as if performing a thorough PR review, catching issues before they are committed.

Arguments

  • •$ARGUMENTS — Optional. Supports two flags that can be combined:
    • •File paths or globs to limit the review scope. If omitted, all uncommitted changes are reviewed.
    • •--card <JIRA-KEY> to also check the implementation against a Jira card's acceptance criteria.

Examples

code
/precommit-review
/precommit-review --card NPT-1224
/precommit-review Neptune.EFModels/Entities/TreatmentBMPs.cs
/precommit-review Neptune.Web/src/app/pages/treatment-bmps/ --card NPT-1225

Steps

  1. •

    Gather the diff. Run git diff HEAD (or scoped to the provided paths) to see all uncommitted changes. Also run git status to identify untracked files. For untracked files, read their full contents.

  2. •

    Read context. For each changed file, read enough surrounding context to understand the change (the full file if small, or the relevant class/method if large). Also read closely related files when needed (e.g. if a controller changed, read the corresponding business logic class in Neptune.EFModels/Entities/; if a DTO changed, read the controller that uses it; if a component TS changed, read its template).

  3. •

    Review against this checklist. Evaluate every change against each category below. Only report actual issues found — do not list categories that pass.

    Correctness

    • •Logic errors, off-by-one, null/undefined access, wrong variable used
    • •Missing await on async calls
    • •API contract mismatches (DTO field names vs. what the controller/frontend expects)
    • •Missing or incorrect validation (e.g. FK constraints that could be violated)

    Project Patterns (from CLAUDE.md)

    • •Backend: Business logic in static helper classes in Neptune.EFModels/Entities/ (e.g. TreatmentBMPs.cs, Projects.cs), not in controllers. Controllers extend SitkaController<T>(dbContext, logger, neptuneConfiguration) with 3 params. Authorization uses BaseAuthorizationAttribute derivatives: [AdminFeature], [SitkaAdminFeature], [JurisdictionEditFeature], [UserViewFeature], [LoggedInUnclassifiedFeature], [TreatmentBMPViewFeature].
    • •Frontend: Standalone components only (no NgModules). Modern @if/@for flow control in templates (not *ngIf/*ngFor). Observables + async pipe for data display. Full import paths from src/app/. SCSS imports: @use "/src/scss/abstracts" as *;. Reactive forms with src/app/shared/components/forms/form-field/.
    • •Generated files: Files under */Generated/ directories and Neptune.Web/src/app/shared/generated/ should not be hand-edited.

    Security

    • •SQL injection, XSS, command injection
    • •Secrets or credentials in code
    • •Missing authorization attributes on new endpoints

    Consistency

    • •Naming conventions (PascalCase C#, camelCase TS properties, PascalCase TS DTOs)
    • •New code matches the style of adjacent existing code
    • •Duplicated code that should be shared (e.g. identical SCSS in sibling components)

    Completeness

    • •New API endpoints missing tests
    • •New backend validation missing corresponding error handling on the frontend
    • •Missing imports or declarations
    • •Database changes without corresponding EF model updates (or vice versa)
    • •Swagger/codegen not re-run after API changes

    Performance

    • •N+1 queries (loading collections in loops without Include)
    • •Missing AsNoTracking() on read-only queries
    • •Large unnecessary data loading
  4. •

    Check against Jira card (only if --card <KEY> was provided). Fetch the Jira issue using getAccessibleAtlassianResources then getJiraIssue (with cloudId from the first call). Compare the card's scope/acceptance criteria against the uncommitted changes:

    • •Build a table mapping each card requirement to its implementation status (Done / Partial / Missing).
    • •Any Missing items go into Critical.
    • •Any Partial items go into Good Idea.
    • •Append a Jira Card Coverage section after Looks Good with the full requirements table.
  5. •

    Run tests. Execute the full test suite:

    code
    dotnet test Neptune.Tests/Neptune.Tests.csproj --no-restore
    • •If any tests fail, include each failure in the Critical findings with the test name and error message.
    • •If all tests pass, note the count in the Looks Good section.
  6. •

    Present findings organized by severity:

    Format

    code
    ## 🔴 Critical (Must Fix)
1. **[file:line]** Description of the issue and suggested fix
2. **[file:line]** Description of the issue and suggested fix

## 🟠 Good Idea (Probably Should Fix)
1. **[file:line]** Description of the issue and suggested fix
2. **[file:line]** Description of the issue and suggested fix

## 🟡 Nits (Dealer's Choice)
1. **[file:line]** Description of the suggestion
2. **[file:line]** Description of the suggestion

## 🟢 Looks Good
Brief summary of what was reviewed and found to be correct.

    Number each finding sequentially within its category (starting at 1 per category) so findings can be referenced easily (e.g. "fix Good Idea #2").

    IMPORTANT: Use the literal Unicode emoji characters shown above (🔴, 🟠, 🟡, 🟢), NOT markdown shortcodes like :red_circle: — shortcodes do not render in Windows Terminal.

    If there are no issues at any severity level, say so and summarize what was reviewed.

  7. •

    Do NOT make any changes. This skill is read-only — it only reports findings. The user decides what to act on.