firefrost-gaming/antigravity-skills-reference

Files

sickn33 054565490e meta(skills): Backfill risk and source metadata

Add a conservative metadata fixer for missing risk and source fields,
cover it with tests, and backfill the remaining skills using explicit
source inference only when the provenance is clear. Fall back to the
repo-documented defaults when the file does not support a stronger claim.

Refs #365

2026-03-20 09:17:09 +01:00

2.3 KiB

Raw Blame History

name, description, risk, source

name	description	risk	source
comprehensive-review-pr-enhance	Generate structured PR descriptions from diffs, add review checklists, risk assessments, and test coverage summaries. Use when the user says "write a PR description", "improve this PR", "summarize my changes", "PR review", "pull request", or asks to document a diff for reviewers.	unknown	community

Pull Request Enhancement

Workflow

Run git diff <base>...HEAD --stat to identify changed files and scope
Categorise changes: source, test, config, docs, build, styles
Generate the PR description using the template below
Add a review checklist based on which file categories changed
Flag breaking changes, security-sensitive files, or large diffs (>500 lines)

PR Description Template

## Summary
<!-- one-paragraph executive summary: what changed and why -->

## Changes
| Category | Files | Key change |
|----------|-------|------------|
| source   | `src/auth.ts` | added OAuth2 PKCE flow |
| test     | `tests/auth.test.ts` | covers token refresh edge case |
| config   | `.env.example` | new `OAUTH_CLIENT_ID` var |

## Why
<!-- link to issue/ticket + one sentence on motivation -->

## Testing
- [ ] unit tests pass (`npm test`)
- [ ] manual smoke test on staging
- [ ] no coverage regression

## Risks & Rollback
- **Breaking?** yes / no
- **Rollback**: revert this commit; no migration needed
- **Risk level**: low / medium / high — because ___

Review Checklist Rules

Add checklist sections only when the matching file category appears in the diff:

File category	Checklist items
source	no debug statements, functions <50 lines, descriptive names, error handling
test	meaningful assertions, edge cases, no flaky tests, AAA pattern
config	no hardcoded secrets, env vars documented, backwards compatible
docs	accurate, examples included, changelog updated
security-sensitive (`auth`, `crypto`, `token`, `password` in path)	input validation, no secrets in logs, authz correct

Splitting Large PRs

When diff exceeds 20 files or 1000 lines, suggest splitting by feature area:

git checkout -b feature/part-1
git cherry-pick <commits-for-part-1>

Resources

resources/implementation-playbook.md — Python helpers for automated PR analysis, coverage reports, and risk scoring

2.3 KiB Raw Blame History