check

Check: Review Before You Ship

Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.

Read the diff, find the problems, fix what can be fixed safely, ask about the rest. Done means verification ran in this session and passed.

Get the Diff

Get the full diff between the current branch and the base branch. If unclear, ask. If already on the base branch, ask which commits to review.

Triage Mode

Activate when the user mentions: issue, PR, "review all", triage, "batch", or "批量处理". Skip the diff flow and run this instead.

Flow:

1. gh issue list -R <repo> --state open --limit 20 and gh pr list -R <repo> --state open to pull pending items.
2. For each item, check if a fix already exists before analyzing:

   git tag --sort=-version:refname | head -1          # latest tag
   git log --oneline <tag>..HEAD | grep -i "<keyword>" # merged but unreleased?
   

   Three outcomes: already shipped (close with note), merged but unreleased (reply "已修复，等下一个版本 release", close), or no fix (analyze).
3. Classify each item using the Category A-E system in ~/www/CLAUDE.md. Do not copy the definitions here; read them from that file.
4. Draft every reply and show it to Tang for confirmation before calling gh issue comment or any GitHub write operation.
5. If no open items exist: shift to historical analysis. Run gh issue list -R <repo> --state closed --limit 50 and look for recurring themes, fixes closed without resolution, and deferred features with demand. Produce a short per-project summary with Fix candidates and Feature candidates. Do not implement without approval.

Sign-off line (append to standard sign-off):

triage:           N reviewed, N closed, N deferred

Scope

Measure the diff and classify depth:

Depth	Criteria	Reviewers
Quick	Under 100 lines, 1-5 files	Base review only
Standard	100-500 lines, or 6-10 files	Base + conditional specialists
Deep	500+ lines, 10+ files, or touches auth/payments/data mutation	Base + all specialists + adversarial pass

State the depth before proceeding.

Did We Build What Was Asked?

Before reading code, check scope drift: do the diff and the stated goal match? Label: on target / drift / incomplete.

Drift signals (examples, not exhaustive -- any one is enough to label drift):

• A changed file has no connection to the stated goal
• The diff includes pure refactoring (renames, formatting, restructuring) when the goal was a bug fix or feature
• A new dependency appears that the goal did not mention
• Code unrelated to the goal was deleted or commented out
• A new abstraction or helper was introduced that is not required by the goal

Hard Stops (fix before merging)

Examples, not exhaustive -- flag any diff that could cause irreversible harm if merged unreviewed.

• Destructive auto-execution: any task marked "safe" or "auto-run" that modifies user-visible state (history files, config, preferences, installed software) must require explicit confirmation.
• Release artifacts missing: verify every artifact listed in the release template exists as a local file and has been uploaded before declaring done.
• Unknown identifiers in diff: any function, variable, or type introduced in the diff that does not exist in the codebase is a hard stop. Grep before writing or approving any reference: grep -r "name" . -- no results outside the diff = does not exist.
• Injection and validation: SQL, command, path injection at system entry points. Credentials hardcoded or logged.
• Dependency changes: unexpected additions or version bumps in package.json, Cargo.toml, go.mod, requirements.txt. Flag any new dependency not obviously required by the diff.

Specialist Review (Standard and Deep only)

Load references/persona-catalog.md to determine which specialists activate. Launch all activated specialists in parallel via the environment's agent or sub-agent facility when available, passing the full diff. If no parallel reviewer facility exists, run the specialist passes sequentially in the same session.

Merge findings: when two specialists flag the same code location, keep the higher severity and note cross-reviewer agreement. Findings on different code locations are never duplicates even if they share a theme.

Autofix Routing

Class	Definition	Action
safe_auto	Unambiguous, risk-free: typos, missing imports, style inconsistencies	Apply immediately
gated_auto	Likely correct but changes behavior: null checks, error handling additions	Batch into one user confirmation block
manual	Requires judgment: architecture, behavior changes, security tradeoffs	Present in sign-off
advisory	Informational only	Note in sign-off

Apply all safe_auto fixes first. Batch all gated_auto into one confirmation block. Never ask separately about each one.

Adversarial Pass (Deep only)

"If I were trying to break this system through this specific diff, what would I exploit?" Four angles (see references/persona-catalog.md): assumption violation, composition failures, cascade construction, abuse cases. Suppress findings below 0.60 confidence.

GitHub Operations

Use gh CLI for all GitHub interactions, not MCP or raw API. Confirm CI passes before merging.

Verification

Run bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR:-$HOME/.agents/skills/check}/scripts/run-tests.sh" or the project's known verification command. Paste the full output.

If the script exits non-zero or prints (no test command detected): halt. Do not claim done. Ask the user for the verification command before proceeding. If the user also cannot provide one, document this explicitly in the sign-off as verification: none -- no command available and flag it as a structural gap, not a pass.

For bug fixes: a regression test that fails on the old code must exist before the fix is done.

If any of these phrases appear in your reasoning, stop and run verification first:

• "should work now" / "probably correct" / "seems to be working" / "trivial change"

Gotchas

What happened	Rule
Commented on #249 when discussing #255	Run gh issue view N to confirm title before acting
PR comment sounded like a report	1-2 sentences, natural, like a colleague. Not structured, not AI-sounding.
PR comment used bullet points	Write as paragraphs; thank the contributor first
article.en.md inside _posts_en/ doubled the suffix	Check naming convention of existing files in the target directory first
Deployed without env vars set	Run vercel env ls before deploying; diff against local keys
Push failed from auth mismatch	Run git remote -v before the first push in a new project

Document Review Mode

Activate when: PDF, document, release notes, white paper, final version, or "check this document"

Review checklist:

• Privacy scan: Detect PII (names, companies, employment dates, salary hints, location details). Hard stop if any text implies job seeking, competitor info, or personal data leakage.
• Tone consistency: Flag voice shifts, register mismatches, formulaic phrasing. Check for AI patterns (see /write skill for detection rules).
• Bilingual validation: For CN/EN pairs, confirm translation accuracy and terminology consistency. Use /write skill's bilingual rules.
• Rendering check: Placeholder text remaining (Lorem ipsum, TODO, [TBD]), style violations, font fallbacks, broken image links.

Output format: same as code review sign-off, but replace verification: with privacy: clear / N issues found.

Sign-off

files changed:    N (+X -Y)
scope:            on target / drift: [what]
review depth:     quick / standard / deep
hard stops:       N found, N fixed, N deferred
specialists:      [security, architecture] or none
new tests:        N
verification:     [command] -> pass / fail