Agent skill

Review PR Local

by warpdotdev in warpdotdev/warp

Repo-specific review guidance for warp. An agent skill from warpdotdev/warp.

AGPL-3.0Auto-check passedDevelopment

Install Review PR Local

skills CLI
$ npx skills add warpdotdev/warp --skill review-pr-local -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install warpdotdev/warp review-pr-local --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/warpdotdev/warp.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/.agents/skills/review-pr-local .claude/skills/review-pr-local && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
review-pr-local
GitHub stars
65k
Used in
1 other repo
Token cost
~2.8k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,501 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
46
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
AGPL-3.0

At a glance

Repo-specific review guidance for warp. An agent skill from warpdotdev/warp.

  • Tasks that involve Pull requests
  • SKILL.md covers Prerequisite: install the…, Repo-specific style and…, Pre-Verdict Audit:… and Behavioral or UI-impacting…, plus 2 more sections
  • Calls git; reaches github.com and user-images.githubusercontent.com

What it does

Review PR Local is an agent skill from warpdotdev/warp. Repo-specific review guidance for warp. Only the categories declared overridable by the core review-pr skill may be specialized here.

Its SKILL.md is about 2.8k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in Development, covering Pull requests. The repository describes itself as: Warp is an agentic development environment, born out of the terminal. The licence is AGPL-3.0.

When your agent uses it

  • Tasks that involve Pull requests

Example prompts

  • “/review-pr-local”

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 325d4d4. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • git

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    Hosts in commands or code, which the agent is likely to contact:

    • github.com
    • user-images.githubusercontent.com

    Also links to:

    • docs.warp.dev

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Review PR Local loads about 2.8k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 37 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,501 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~37
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~2.8k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from warpdotdev/warp at commit 325d4d4, republished under its AGPL-3.0 licence (© warpdotdev). 1,501 words, ~2,825 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/review-pr-local/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
review-pr-local
description
Repo-specific review guidance for warp. Only the categories declared overridable by the core review-pr skill may be specialized here.
specializes
review-pr
specializes_source
warpdotdev/common-skills:.agents/skills/review-pr

Repo-specific review guidance for warp

Prerequisite: install the parent skill

This skill specializes the core review-pr skill (named in the specializes frontmatter field) and is not functional on its own. Before applying its guidance, confirm the parent skill is installed and resolvable at .agents/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md. If it is missing, install it first by copying the skill directory from the source declared in the specializes_source frontmatter field (warpdotdev/common-skills:.agents/skills/review-pr). Then continue with the guidance below.

This file is a companion to the core review-pr skill. It does not redefine the review output schema, severity labels, safety rules, or evidence rules. It only specializes the override categories the core skill marks as overridable.

Repo-specific style and recurring review patterns

  • Check every PR against the testing guidelines in .agents/skills/rust-unit-tests/SKILL.md and .agents/skills/gui-integration-test/SKILL.md: flag tests the PR adds that those skills would call out, and new code that should have a test and doesn't. Treat a clear violation of these guidelines as ⚠️ [IMPORTANT], not a nit.
  • When a PR is clearly a V0 or initial implementation, frame robustness suggestions such as timeouts, retries, and lifecycle management as optional future work rather than blocking concerns, unless they risk correctness, security, data loss, or a persistent UI hang.
  • For Rust changes, apply the repository conventions from AGENTS.md: avoid unnecessary type annotations, prefer imports over long path qualifiers, name context parameters ctx and place them last, remove unused parameters instead of prefixing them with _, and prefer inline format arguments in macros.
  • Audit the comments a PR adds or changes against the "Comments" guidance under "Development Guidelines" in AGENTS.md — comments carry a maintenance cost, so a new comment should earn its place. Check each added/changed comment individually against every named sub-rule (Minimalist Comments, Strictly "Why" Only, No Line-by-Line Narrations, Clean Docstrings, Single-source of documentation, Don't enumerate function call sites, No "transformation comments") rather than forming one overall impression of the comment's quality. Common issues to flag: comments that restate what the code already says instead of explaining non-obvious why; "transformation" comments that describe the edit rather than the current state (e.g. "this used to ..."); doc comments that narrate a function's internal steps or enumerate its callers; explanations duplicated at a call site or reference that the declaration's doc comment already covers; and existing comments removed as collateral of an otherwise unrelated change. Read the full list in AGENTS.md rather than relying on these examples alone. A comment that is technically accurate, well-written, or explains a subtle/important issue is not exempt from these rules — do not let those qualities substitute for the rule-by-rule check. Treat a confirmed violation as ⚠️ [IMPORTANT], not a nit.
  • When a PR adds or changes calls to log macros (log::* / safe_*), review the level choice against .agents/skills/logging-and-error-reporting/SKILL.md: using log::error! for a failure that should be a Sentry issue (only report_error! and panics create issues — log::* at Error/Warn/Info are just breadcrumbs), an inappropriate level for hot paths, and secrets/PII in Info-and-above logs (use the safe_* macros for sensitive detail). For report_error! / report_if_error! calls, run the mandatory audit below instead of relying on a narrative pass.
  • Avoid wildcard _ match arms when an enum can reasonably be matched exhaustively; exhaustive matches are preferred so future variants are surfaced during review.
  • For new or changed feature flags, prefer high-level runtime checks with FeatureFlag::YourFlag.is_enabled() over #[cfg(...)] unless the code cannot compile without a compile-time gate.
  • Flag nested or redundant TerminalModel locking when the call stack may already hold the model lock. Prefer passing locked references down the stack and keeping lock scopes short.
  • In WarpUI code, flag inline MouseStateHandle::default() usage during render or event handling. Mouse state handles should be created during construction and then cloned/referenced where needed.
  • For user-facing UI changes, mention missing validation only when it is tied to a concrete risk or when the PR changes behavior that should be verified visually.

Pre-Verdict Audit: error-reporting form

This specializes the core skill's Pre-Verdict Audit (error-reporting category). Whenever the diff adds or changes a report_error! or report_if_error! call, this audit is mandatory, no matter how large the diff is — a holistic read-through is not sufficient, and skimming past most of a large migration is exactly how the mass log::error! → report_error! migration merged this form of bug undetected.

Before drafting the body or choosing a verdict: list every report_error! / report_if_error! call the diff adds or changes, one by one with its file:line. For each one, check it against .agents/skills/logging-and-error-reporting/SKILL.md (rules 1–5 and the Anti-patterns block define the exact forms; this list is a lookup index, not a restatement) for:

  • a real, typed error demoted into extra: instead of reported as the payload
  • a typed error stringified into the grouping message (anyhow!("{e}") / "{e:?}") instead of preserved via .context() / anyhow::Error::new
  • per-instance/variable data interpolated into the grouping message instead of carried via .context() / extra:
  • the same failure reported more than once instead of once at the sink ("Report once, at the sink")

Also confirm hot/per-frame or per-message paths use ReportErrorLogMode::OncePerRun where the skill calls for it. Treat a confirmed violation as ⚠️ [IMPORTANT]. The enumerated list is the evidence this audit ran — do not substitute a summary like "spot-checked the report_error! sites."

Show full SKILL.md (656 more words)Show less

Behavioral or UI-impacting changes and visual evidence

  • If the PR changes anything user-visible (UI components, layout, styling, copy in surfaces users see, terminal/Warp app visuals, or other behavior a user can perceive), analyze both pr_description.txt and any PR comments available in the workflow context for attached screenshots, GIFs, or videos demonstrating the change end to end.
    • Treat markdown image/video embeds (![...](...), <img ...>, <video ...>), GitHub user-attachment links (e.g. https://github.com/user-attachments/..., https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/...), Loom links, and similar hosted media as valid evidence.
    • The Screenshots / Videos section from .github/pull_request_template.md being present but empty does not count as evidence.
    • Unit tests, integration tests, git diff --check, code-path descriptions, and other textual explanations may supplement visual evidence but do not replace it when visual proof is required.
  • If the change is behavioral or UI-impacting and no screenshots or videos are attached in the description or comments, you may add an inline or summary-level comment requesting them. Use wording such as: "For this user-facing change, please include screenshots or a screen recording demonstrating it working end to end."
  • Missing visual evidence is blocking only when the request, brief, or spec explicitly required visual proof. In that case, when the change can be manually tested, set the final recommendation in the top-level body ## Verdict section to Request changes, even if no other blocking issues were found; the top-level verdict field must be "REJECT" to match. Otherwise, missing visual evidence is not a finding — ordinary tests and checks are sufficient.
  • Author environment limitations (e.g., headless runner, no desktop, environment can't capture) do not exempt a change that explicitly required visual proof. Suggest capturing the recording from a local desktop run or from a remote environment with desktop/computer-use support (for example, a coding agent such as Oz with computer use enabled). Reply with something like: "This change is user-facing, so a screenshot or short recording is still required. If a local desktop isn't available, you can capture it from a coding agent that supports computer use (Oz is one option — see Warp's computer use docs) and attach it here." Set the verdict to Request changes.
  • Exempt visual evidence only when the user-visible behavior truly cannot be meaningfully shown visually (for example, changes affecting only screen readers or non-visual side effects). If so, briefly state why screenshots or recordings would not be meaningful. When visual proof is required, never exempt based on limitations of the author's environment.
  • TUI caveat: for changes to the headless TUI (crates/warp_tui or the cell-grid element library at crates/warpui_core/src/elements/tui), acceptable "visual evidence" is a terminal transcript, a render_to_lines / TuiBuffer::to_lines snapshot diff, or a ./script/run-tui capture — NOT a computer_use screenshot or real-display recording (those are for the GUI desktop app). See the tui-verify-change skill. The MouseStateHandle ownership rule still applies to TUI code: the TUI's hover/click elements (TuiHoverable, tui_collapsible) are built on the shared MouseStateHandle and must own the handle outside render (created once, reused) so hover/click state survives rebuilt element trees — so flag inline MouseStateHandle::default() there too. Only the GUI's pixel-based hit-testing specifics are GUI-only.
  • If the PR is not user-visible at all (e.g. pure refactor, internal tools, build scripts, backend-only code, tests, or documentation), do not request screenshots or videos.

User-facing strings

  • Flag interpolated text that would read unnaturally at runtime or combine sentence fragments with the wrong casing.
  • Link text should be descriptive rather than bare URLs or generic "click here" labels.
  • Verify that product terminology is consistent across related UI, comments, workflow messages, and errors in the same PR.

Graceful degradation and observability

  • When optional dynamic data such as URLs, session links, workflow links, issue numbers, or metadata may be absent, prefer omitting the element or showing a short fallback over rendering empty or broken output.
  • Do not suggest removing session links, workflow URLs, or diagnostic context from error paths. Those links are important for debugging failed automation and user reports.
  • Prefer generic, user-safe error text in user-visible surfaces, but keep enough structured logging or diagnostic context for maintainers to investigate failures.

© warpdotdev, AGPL-3.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in .agents/skills/review-pr-local of warpdotdev/warp.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 325d4d4

Used in 1 other repository

We found 1 copy of this SKILL.md (exact, near-identical or edited) in other folders, from 1 other GitHub owner. This page covers the copy in warpdotdev/warp, which our catalogue first saw on October 7, 2026.

Compare with similar skills

Review PR Local next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Review PR Local compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Review PR Local this skillwarpdotdev/warp65k1 repos~2.8kAutomated safety check: PassAGPL-3.0
Finishing a Development Branchobra/superpowers296k5 repos~1.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
PR Babysitteropeninterpreter/openinterpreter69k3 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Check PRonyx-dot-app/onyx32k2 repos~2.3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Understand Diff AnalysisEgonex-AI/Understand-Anything86k1 repos~1.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
PR Design DocOpenHands/OpenHands90k—~2.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Walks the last step of a branch: confirm tests pass, detect the git environment, ask how to integrate, carry out your choice and clean up the worktree.

    296k GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~1.9k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • PR Babysitter

    openinterpreter/openinterpreter

    Watches an open GitHub pull request until it merges, handling review comments, diagnosing CI failures and retrying flaky checks along the way.

    69k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~4.2k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Check PR

    onyx-dot-app/onyx

    Checks a GitHub, GitLab, or Perforce (p4) pull request (or merge request, or shelved changelist) for unresolved review comments, failing status checks, and incomplete PR descriptions.

    32k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~2.3k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Understand Diff Analysis

    Egonex-AI/Understand-Anything

    Reads your git changes or a pull request against a prebuilt knowledge graph of the project to explain what changed, which components are affected and what is risky.

    86k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~1.4k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • PR Design Doc

    OpenHands/OpenHands

    For a non-trivial pull request, write a self-contained HTML design doc under the temporary .pr/ directory and link a visibility-appropriate preview in the PR description, so maintainers grasp the…

    90k GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • WooCommerce Code Review

    woocommerce/woocommerce

    Reviews WooCommerce code changes against the project's standards, flagging backend PHP architecture, naming, documentation, data integrity and testing violations.

    11k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~1.1k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from warpdotdev/warp

All 46 skills in this repo
  • Builds or updates a design system in Figma from a codebase in ordered phases: discovery, variables and tokens, components, theming and documentation, with checkpoints.

    65k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~4.4k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Required groundwork before any use_figma call: the rules and reference files for running JavaScript in a Figma file through the Plugin API without common failures.

    65k GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~4.4k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Warp Factory Files

    warpdotdev/warp

    Authors and edits file-based Warp software factory definitions rooted at factory.yaml, covering agents, automations, scorers and webhooks, and validates them before a pull request.

    65k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~2.5k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Figma Design to Code

    warpdotdev/warp

    Turns a Figma frame or component into production code that matches the design, using the Figma MCP server and the project's own design system.

    65k GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~2.9k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Migrates the compatible subset of settings and global file-based MCP servers from the Warp desktop app into Warp Agent CLI without exposing credentials or state.

    65k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~2.1k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Creates project-specific design system rules from your codebase so coding agents implement Figma designs with your components, naming and tokens.

    65k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~4.6k tokens
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Review PR Local

What does Review PR Local do?

Repo-specific review guidance for warp. An agent skill from warpdotdev/warp. Review PR Local is an agent skill from warpdotdev/warp. Repo-specific review guidance for warp.

When should I use Review PR Local?

Review PR Local fits situations like: tasks that involve Pull requests.

How do I install Review PR Local in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add warpdotdev/warp --skill review-pr-local -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (.agents/skills/review-pr-local in warpdotdev/warp) into .claude/skills/review-pr-local in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Review PR Local in Codex?

Run `npx skills add warpdotdev/warp --skill review-pr-local -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (.agents/skills/review-pr-local in warpdotdev/warp) into .agents/skills/review-pr-local in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Review PR Local in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add warpdotdev/warp --skill review-pr-local -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/review-pr-local, .gemini/skills/review-pr-local, .github/skills/review-pr-local and .opencode/skills/review-pr-local in your project.

What does Review PR Local need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Review PR Local needs the command-line tools its instructions call (git).

Does Review PR Local access the network?

SKILL.md names 3 domains. In commands or code: github.com and user-images.githubusercontent.com; the agent is likely to contact these when it follows the instructions. As links in the text: docs.warp.dev. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Review PR Local safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Review PR Local use?

Review PR Local is published under the AGPL-3.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Review PR Local use?

About 2.8k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 11k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Review PR Local?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Review PR Local: Finishing a Development Branch (obra/superpowers, 296k stars), PR Babysitter (openinterpreter/openinterpreter, 69k stars), Check PR (onyx-dot-app/onyx, 32k stars) and Understand Diff Analysis (Egonex-AI/Understand-Anything, 86k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Review PR Local?

warpdotdev (a GitHub organization) maintains it in warpdotdev/warp, which has 65,395 GitHub stars. The repository holds 46 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 8, 2026.

Source: warpdotdev/warp on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.