github-starred/android
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitwarden/android.git synced 2026-03-09 11:44:41 -05:00
Code Issues 144 Packages Projects Releases 116 Wiki Activity

[PR #6121] Reduce verbosity in reviewing-changes skill for clean PRs #6333

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-11-27 00:22:26 -06:00 by GiteaMirror · 0 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-27 00:22:26 -06:00
Owner
Copy Link

Original Pull Request: https://github.com/bitwarden/android/pull/6121

State: closed
Merged: Yes

🎟️ Tracking

N/A

📔 Objective

This PR reduces excessive verbosity in the reviewing-changes skill when reviewing clean PRs with no issues.

Problem:
PR #6117 received an ~800 token review with elaborate praise sections (Key Strengths, Changes, Code Quality & Architecture, etc.) when no issues were found. The expected output should have been ~30 tokens: "APPROVE - Clean refactoring".

Root Causes:

  • No explicit guidance for "clean PR" scenario
  • Positive feedback rules understated in skill documentation
  • Contradictory verbose example in refactoring checklist
  • Insufficient emphasis on anti-patterns for excessive praise

Solution:
Modified 4 skill files to establish "minimal reviews for clean PRs" as the primary principle:

  1. SKILL.md: Added "Special Case: Clean PRs" section with explicit 2-3 line approval format; made "minimal reviews" the first core principle
  2. review-psychology.md: Elevated brevity guidance to first directive position
  3. review-outputs.md: Added Example 7 showing actual PR #6117 verbose output as anti-pattern with correct minimal approach
  4. refactoring.md: Replaced single verbose example with two distinct examples (with issues vs clean)

Expected Impact:

  • 70-90% token reduction for clean PRs (800 → 30-100 tokens)
  • Maintains comprehensive reviews for PRs with actual issues
  • Reduces noise in PR conversations
  • Faster approvals for good work
  • Clearer expectations for appropriate review verbosity

Testing:
The skill should now produce minimal ~30 token approvals for clean PRs while maintaining detailed inline comments with collapsible <details> tags for PRs with actual issues.

Note: This is a documentation-only change to the .claude/skills/reviewing-changes/ skill. No application code is modified.

⏰ Reminders before review

  • Contributor guidelines followed
  • All formatters and local linters executed and passed
  • Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
  • Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
  • Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
  • CI builds passed
  • Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
  • Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

  • 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
  • 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
  • ❓ (:question:) for questions
  • 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
  • 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
  • ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
  • 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
  • ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes
**Original Pull Request:** https://github.com/bitwarden/android/pull/6121 **State:** closed **Merged:** Yes --- ## 🎟️ Tracking N/A ## 📔 Objective This PR reduces excessive verbosity in the `reviewing-changes` skill when reviewing clean PRs with no issues. **Problem:** PR #6117 received an ~800 token review with elaborate praise sections (Key Strengths, Changes, Code Quality & Architecture, etc.) when no issues were found. The expected output should have been ~30 tokens: `"APPROVE - Clean refactoring"`. **Root Causes:** - No explicit guidance for "clean PR" scenario - Positive feedback rules understated in skill documentation - Contradictory verbose example in refactoring checklist - Insufficient emphasis on anti-patterns for excessive praise **Solution:** Modified 4 skill files to establish "minimal reviews for clean PRs" as the primary principle: 1. **SKILL.md**: Added "Special Case: Clean PRs" section with explicit 2-3 line approval format; made "minimal reviews" the first core principle 2. **review-psychology.md**: Elevated brevity guidance to first directive position 3. **review-outputs.md**: Added Example 7 showing actual PR #6117 verbose output as anti-pattern with correct minimal approach 4. **refactoring.md**: Replaced single verbose example with two distinct examples (with issues vs clean) **Expected Impact:** - 70-90% token reduction for clean PRs (800 → 30-100 tokens) - Maintains comprehensive reviews for PRs with actual issues - Reduces noise in PR conversations - Faster approvals for good work - Clearer expectations for appropriate review verbosity **Testing:** The skill should now produce minimal ~30 token approvals for clean PRs while maintaining detailed inline comments with collapsible `<details>` tags for PRs with actual issues. --- **Note:** This is a documentation-only change to the `.claude/skills/reviewing-changes/` skill. No application code is modified. --- ## ⏰ Reminders before review - Contributor guidelines followed - All formatters and local linters executed and passed - Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable - Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags) - Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings - CI builds passed - Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements - Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team ## 🦮 Reviewer guidelines <!-- Suggested interactions but feel free to use (or not) as you desire! --> - 👍 (`:+1:`) or similar for great changes - 📝 (`:memo:`) or ℹ️ (`:information_source:`) for notes or general info - ❓ (`:question:`) for questions - 🤔 (`:thinking:`) or 💭 (`:thought_balloon:`) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion - 🎨 (`:art:`) for suggestions / improvements - ❌ (`:x:`) or ⚠️ (`:warning:`) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention - 🌱 (`:seedling:`) or ♻️ (`:recycle:`) for future improvements or indications of technical debt - ⛏ (`:pick:`) for minor or nitpick changes
GiteaMirror added the pull-request label 2025-11-27 00:22:26 -06:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
app:authenticator
app:password-manager
bug
bug-passkey
customer-support
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
needs-reply
needs-response
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
No Label pull-request
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/android#6333
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?