review-as-json

사용 방법

설치 명령을 복사하고 자신의 에이전트 환경에 설치하기 전에 소스 패키지를 확인하세요.
필요한 도구, 인증 정보, 지원 환경은 원본 문서에서 확인하세요.
입력과 원하는 산출물을 설명하고 출처와 결과를 대조하세요.

npx skills add https://github.com/elliottlawson/open-review --skill review-as-json

시작 전 확인

설치에는 모델 구독, API 한도, 파일 접근 권한이 포함되지 않습니다.
별점 수와 설치 수는 활동 지표이며 독립적인 품질·보안 검증이 아닙니다.

원본 Skill 문서

원본 저장소의 제목, 예시, 코드, 표, 링크, 이미지를 유지해 표시합니다.

Review as JSON

Run /review on this change and follow it exactly.

Emit the result as a single JSON object instead of a prose report:

json

{
  "verdict": "approve | changes_needed | hold",
  "summary": "One or two sentences on the change overall.",
  "findings": [
    {
      "severity": "critical | warning | info",
      "type": "issue | suggestion | question",
      "category": "mission | architecture | implementation | craft | security | performance",
      "title": "Short imperative, e.g. 'Sanitize user input before query'",
      "description": "What it is, why it matters, and the consequence.",
      "file": "path/to/file.ts",
      "line": 42,
      "suggestedFix": "Optional concrete fix."
    }
  ],
  "passes": {
    "mission": "met | missing | different | unclear",
    "architecture": "ok | concern | blocking",
    "implementation": "ok | concern | blocking",
    "craft": "ok | concern | blocking",
    "security": "ok | concern | blocking",
    "performance": "ok | concern | blocking"
  },
  "sectionSummaries": {
    "mustFix": "1-2 sentences on the critical findings, if any.",
    "shouldFix": "1-2 sentences on the warnings, if any.",
    "questions": "1-2 sentences on the questions, if any.",
    "suggestions": "1-2 sentences on the suggestions, if any."
  }
}

Rules for the output:

Emit only the JSON object. No preamble, no commentary, no markdown fences around it.
Severity. critical blocks merge (bugs, security holes, data loss). warning should be addressed but isn't a blocker. info is a note.
Summary. Never restate the verdict ("This PR is approved", "Changes requested") — the presentation layer renders it. The summary answers why.
sectionSummaries. Explain the underlying theme ("Missing input validation across the new endpoints"), never just count findings.
Type. question is something you need answered rather than a defect. suggestion is an optional improvement. Everything else is an issue.
Category. Every finding's category is the pass that found it — this is how the passes show up in CI output.
Verify before you flag still applies. Every finding needs a concrete file, line, and consequence. If you can't verify it, make it a question.
If there are no findings, emit an empty findings array and an approve verdict.