npx claudepluginhub lklimek/agents --plugin claudiusThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
When asked to audit/review a PR, follow this workflow.
Reviews GitHub pull requests using parallel subagents for CLAUDE.md compliance, bugs, git history context, past feedback, and code comment adherence.
Conducts deep PR reviews using 6-7 parallel specialized agents for code quality, security, testing, frontend/backend architecture. Use for thorough pull request analysis before merging.
Reviews external pull requests by fetching metadata and diffs via gh/glab, running review contracts, selecting findings, drafting comments, and posting after approval.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
When asked to audit/review a PR, follow this workflow.
Load /claudius:git-and-github skill .
Use GitHub MCP to fetch PR metadata:
pull_request_read with method: "get" — returns title, body, URL, base/head branches, number.pull_request_read with method: "get_files" — returns list of changed files with stats.pull_request_read with method: "get_diff" — returns the full diff.Note: get_files and get_diff can return large responses on sizable PRs. Use the subagent delegation pattern from git-and-github skill § Context Management to avoid polluting your context.
Use local git for commit history and detailed diffs.
If GitHub MCP is unavailable, see gh-cli-fallback.md for gh CLI equivalents.
Invoke the /claudius:grumpy-review skill with the PR scope as the argument. It covers:
Pass the PR's scope (changed files, base branch) as context to the review methodology.
Ask if findings should be published as a GitHub PR review.
The review is posted in two parts:
Post the audit summary as a normal PR issue comment using gh pr comment. This ensures the
summary is always visible (draft reviews hide their body text). Include:
gh pr comment <number> --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Audit Summary
**Reviewed by:** Claude Code with a N-agent team:
- `agent-name` (agent-type) — focus area
...
[Summary text, findings table, pre-existing issues, positive observations]
EOF
)"
Post only actionable findings (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW) as inline comments on specific diff lines. Do not post INFO-level findings as inline comments — INFO findings are positive observations (praise, good patterns) and belong in Part A only. Non-actionable comments clutter the review and waste the reviewer's time.
Post as a draft review so the user can review and submit manually. For trivial changes, include
edit suggestions using suggestion blocks.
See gh-cli-fallback.md for: verifying diff bounds (get base SHA, check hunks), deduplication (fetch existing reviews/comments first), and posting with gh-post-review.sh. The body field can be minimal since the detailed summary is in Part A.
Shutdown all agents (SendMessage type: "shutdown_request"), then TeamDelete (if a team was
used).