Load this skill whenever you write a comment that another human will read.
Use it for:
| Rule | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Be useful fast | Start with the actionable point. Do not recap the whole PR before feedback. |
| Be warm and direct | Sound like a thoughtful teammate, not a corporate bot. |
| Keep it short | Prefer 1 to 3 short paragraphs or a tight bullet list. |
| Explain why | Give the technical reason when asking for a change. |
| Avoid pile-ons | Comment on the highest-value issue, not every tiny preference. |
| Match target context language | Write in the target context language by default: Spanish issue/thread -> Spanish comment, English issue/thread -> English comment, mixed context -> target message language. If the user explicitly requests a language or tone, follow that request. For Spanish comments, use neutral/professional Spanish by default unless the user or target context clearly calls for regional tone. |
| No em dashes | Use commas, periods, or parentheses instead. |
<Direct observation or request>
<Why it matters, only if needed>
<Concrete next action>
Good approach overall. I'd split this into a separate commit because it mixes validation logic with UI wiring.
That keeps the reviewer's focus narrower and makes rollback cleaner if the integration fails.
Approved. The scope is clear and the change is well-contained.
For the next PR, add links to the previous and following PRs so the chain stays navigable.
This PR exceeds the 400-line budget, so we need to split it or justify `size:exception`.
Suggested order: foundation + tests first, then integration, then docs. That gives each review a clear start and end.
# Inspect a PR before writing review feedback
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json title,body,additions,deletions,changedFiles