code-review-protocol

Standardize pull request code review assessments with severity-ranked checklists and merge decisions.

Updated Feb 10, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Jason-hub-star/GameLab --skill code-review-protocol-jason-hub-star
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: code-review-protocol
Source: https://github.com/Jason-hub-star/GameLab/tree/main/skills/code-review-protocol
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Jason-hub-star/GameLab --skill code-review-protocol-jason-hub-star

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

A standardized, severity-driven checklist and workflow to eliminate inconsistent reviews, missed critical issues, and unclear merge decisions during pull request evaluation.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Prioritized review checklist: A ranked list of checks from runtime errors and data integrity to style and documentation to guide what to look for first.
  • Structured review records: A concise record format with severity labels (FATAL/HIGH/NORMAL/LOW), impact, and concrete fix suggestions for traceability and auditing.
  • Merge decision rules: Clear criteria for mergeable, conditionally mergeable, and non-mergeable PRs with templated verdict summary to speed triage.
  • Log & self-review management: Templates and templates to accumulate review history, track regressions, and a pre-PR self-review checklist for authors.
  • Use Case: Apply to codebase PR reviews to produce consistent findings, generate follow-up tickets for NORMAL issues, and prevent merging when HIGH or FATAL issues exist.

Quick Start

Review the changes in PR #123 according to the code-review-protocol and produce a severity-ranked issue list, a merge decision, and actionable follow-up tasks.

Frequently Asked Questions about code-review-protocol

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I standardize code review assessments for pull requests?

To standardize code review assessments, apply a severity-driven checklist to evaluate pull request changes. This process identifies runtime errors, data integrity problems, and UX regressions, producing structured review logs with severity labels and a merge verdict.

What is the best way to track code review issues and regressions across repositories?

Tracking code review issues requires structured review records with severity labels like FATAL or HIGH. These records accumulate review history, track regressions, and provide concrete fix suggestions for traceability and remediation across repositories.

How do I determine merge criteria for a pull request?

Determining merge criteria involves applying clear decision rules for mergeable, conditionally mergeable, and non-mergeable PRs. The protocol speeds triage by generating a templated verdict summary and preventing merges when HIGH or FATAL issues exist.

Can I use this code review checklist for AI reviewers or is it only for human reviewers?

You can use this code review checklist for both human and AI reviewers. It applies across repositories and languages to standardize the evaluation of runtime errors, structural inconsistencies, and style issues for any reviewer type.

How to do a pre-PR self-review before submitting code changes?

To do a pre-PR self-review, run through a pre-PR self-review checklist for authors. This process validates mandatory checklist items against your code changes, ensuring runtime errors and data integrity problems are caught before evaluation.