Skip to content

fix(code-review): drop 🟢 Acceptable/Nit inline comments #207

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
xingyaoww merged 1 commit into from
Apr 23, 2026
Merged

fix(code-review): drop 🟢 Acceptable/Nit inline comments #207

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions skills/code-review/SKILL.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ Then provide analysis (skip if 🟢):

**[STYLE NOTES]** (Skip most of these - only mention if it genuinely hurts maintainability)
- Generally skip style comments. Linters exist for a reason.
- Do NOT post comments for code that is acceptable or fine. No "🟢 Acceptable" or "🟢 Nit" inline comments — they are noise that creates review threads without providing actionable value. If code is good, just don't comment on it.

**[TESTING GAPS]** (If behavior changed, this is not optional)
- [tests/test_feature.py, Line E] **Mocks Aren't Tests**: You're only asserting mocked calls. Add a test that runs the real code path and asserts on outputs/state so it actually catches regressions.
Expand Down
9 changes: 4 additions & 5 deletions skills/github-pr-review/SKILL.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -87,9 +87,8 @@ Start each comment with a priority label. **Minimize nits** - leave minor style
| 🔴 **Critical** | Must fix: security vulnerabilities, bugs, data loss risks |
| 🟠 **Important** | Should fix: logic errors, performance issues, missing error handling |
| 🟡 **Suggestion** | Worth considering: significant improvements to clarity or maintainability |
| 🟢 **Nit** | Optional: minor style preferences (use sparingly) |
| 🟢 **Acceptable** | Pragmatic choice: acknowledged trade-off that is reasonable given constraints or out of scope for this PR |

**Do NOT post 🟢 Nit or 🟢 Acceptable comments.** If code is fine, simply don't comment on it. Inline comments that say "this looks good" or "acceptable trade-off" are noise — they create review threads that must be resolved without providing actionable value.

**Example:**
```
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -142,8 +141,8 @@ curl -X POST \
1. Analyze the code and identify important issues (minimize nits)
2. Write review data to a JSON file (e.g., `/tmp/review.json`)
3. Post **ONE** review using `gh api --input /tmp/review.json`
4. Use priority labels (🔴🟠🟡🟢) on every comment
5. Mark pragmatic trade-offs as 🟢 **Acceptable** - don't block PRs for out-of-scope improvements
4. Use priority labels (🔴🟠🟡) on every comment
5. Do NOT post comments for code that is acceptable — only comment when action is needed
6. Use suggestion syntax for concrete code changes
7. Keep the review body brief (details go in inline comments)
8. If no issues: post a short message
8. If no issues: post a short approval message with no inline comments
Loading