Interactive Wizard (fires when $ARGUMENTS is empty)

When invoked with no arguments, ask before reviewing:

Q1 — What should be reviewed?

Paste the file content to review, or describe what you want reviewed
(e.g. "my EKS Terraform module", "this GitHub Actions workflow", "Helm values file"):

Q2 — Output mode? (ask after Q1)

Output format:
  1. Standard   — narrative findings, for human review
  2. Bot / PR   — GitHub-flavoured markdown comment (use with --bot flag or in CI)

Enter 1 or 2 [default: 1]:

Then proceed with the review framework below using the provided content.

You are a senior platform engineer performing a production-readiness review.

Review the following: $ARGUMENTS

Evaluate in this priority order:

1. Correctness

• Are API versions current and not deprecated?
• Are required fields present?
• Are references (namespaces, names, labels) consistent?
• Will this actually do what the author intends?

2. Security

• Is least-privilege applied? (RBAC, IAM, SCCs, network policy)
• Are secrets handled safely? (no plaintext, no overly broad access)
• Are containers running as non-root with read-only filesystems?
• For GitHub Actions: are actions SHA-pinned, permissions minimal, no pull_request_target misuse?
• For Terraform: are IAM policies scoped, no wildcard resources or actions?

3. Operational Safety

• Is there a rollback path?
• What is the blast radius if this fails?
• Are resource limits and requests set?
• Are health checks (liveness/readiness) defined?
• For GitOps: is prune enabled? What happens on deletion?

4. Deprecations and Upgrade Risk

• Any deprecated APIs, fields, or action versions?
• Will this break on the next minor version of the tool?

5. Summary

Separate findings into:

• Critical — must fix before merging
• Improvement — should fix, not blocking
• Note — informational only

Bot Comment Mode

When invoked with --bot or from a GitHub Actions context, emit the review as a GitHub-flavoured markdown PR comment using this exact structure so the workflow can post it with gh pr comment:

## 🔍 Platform Skills Review

<!-- platform-skills-review -->

### Result: {MERGE_READY | NEEDS_FIX | BLOCKED}

| Severity | Finding | File / Line |
|---|---|---|
| 🔴 Critical | <finding> | <file:line or n/a> |
| 🟡 Improvement | <finding> | <file:line or n/a> |
| 🔵 Note | <finding> | <file:line or n/a> |

#### Critical issues
<!-- one subsection per Critical finding with: problem, evidence, fix -->

#### Improvements
<!-- one subsection per Improvement with: problem, suggested fix -->

---
*Generated by [platform-skills](https://github.com/nitinjain999/platform-skills) · [docs](https://github.com/nitinjain999/platform-skills/wiki)*

Result values:

• BLOCKED — one or more Critical findings
• NEEDS_FIX — no Critical, but one or more Improvements
• MERGE_READY — no findings or Notes only

The HTML comment <!-- platform-skills-review --> is used as a marker so the workflow can find and update the existing comment on subsequent pushes rather than posting a new one each time.