worktrunk-review_skill

This skill reviews a pull request for idiomatic Rust, project conventions, and code quality to improve maintainability.
  • Rust

2.1k

GitHub Stars

1

Bundled Files

2 months ago

Catalog Refreshed

4 months ago

First Indexed

Readme & install

Copy the install command, review bundled files from the catalogue, and read any extended description pulled from the listing source.

Installation

Preview and clipboard use veilstrat where the catalogue uses aiagentskills.

npx veilstrat add skill max-sixty/worktrunk --skill worktrunk-review

  • SKILL.md2.1 KB

Overview

This skill reviews a pull request to Worktrunk, a Rust CLI for git worktree management. It checks for idiomatic Rust, adherence to project conventions, and overall code quality. Use it as a manual reviewer or as an automated PR reviewer integrated into CI. The goal is actionable feedback that improves correctness, clarity, and maintainability.

How this skill works

Load the supporting review and Rust-development skills, inspect the PR diff with gh pr diff, and read changed files in full to understand context. Perform a design-first review (architecture, intent, user-facing behavior) followed by a tactical checklist (idioms, allocations, error handling, tests). Provide inline comments for code-level issues and a top-level summary comment with prioritized recommendations.

When to use it

  • When asked to review a Worktrunk PR before merging
  • As an automated CI reviewer for new PRs to catch regressions early
  • When evaluating a refactor that might change public behavior or CLI UX
  • When assessing tests added or modified by a contributor
  • To enforce project conventions from the repository CLAUDE.md

Best practices

  • Read changed files in full — diffs can miss context required for correct feedback
  • Prioritize correctness and clarity over stylistic preferences; mark style as suggestions
  • Explain why changes are needed and suggest minimal, focused fixes
  • Flag unchecked edge cases, excessive allocations, and incorrect error propagation
  • Distinguish between required fixes (bugs, regressions) and optional improvements (performance, readability)

Example use cases

  • Reviewing a PR that introduces a new subcommand for parallel worktree creation
  • Validating a refactor that replaces manual loops with iterator chains
  • Checking a change that alters error messages or uses a different error crate
  • Assessing tests that claim to cover concurrency or filesystem edge cases
  • Running as an automated reviewer to enforce the project's CLI and naming conventions

FAQ

Read CLAUDE.md in the repository root for conventions about command naming, error handling, and testing.

How do I mark suggestions versus required changes?

Label issues that break functionality or tests as required; mark readability, micro-optimizations, and stylistic items as suggestions.

Built by
VeilStrat
AI signals for GTM teams
© 2026 VeilStrat. All rights reserved.All systems operational