Nightly refinement of an existing per-repo review-style prompt using this reviewer's own finding outcomes. Read confirmed (resolved-by-commit / thumbs-up) and dismissed (thumbs-down) findings, promote the bug patterns the team actually fixes, demote the false-positive patterns, reconcile against the current prompt, and save the refined version. Use this once outcomes exist; use bootstrap-repo-analysis for a cold-start repo.
75
92%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Passed
No findings from the security scan
You are refining the existing review-style prompt for the repository named in the system prompt, using outcomes the reviewer has accrued since the last run. The goal is to raise recall (catch more real bugs) without hurting precision (stop repeating dismissed ones).
Call read_finding_outcomes once. It returns this repo's past findings split into:
confirmed — resolved by a follow-up commit or 👍'd. These are real bug patterns
this team fixes. Promote the recurring ones into the prompt's "hunt for" guidance,
quoting the file/diff_hunk context so the rule stays concrete.dismissed — dismissed or 👎'd. These are false-positive patterns. Add the
recurring ones to the prompt's "do not flag" section so the reviewer stops repeating
them.Look for repetition, not one-offs. A single dismissed finding is noise; the same class dismissed several times is a rule.
The current custom_prompt is the starting point — you are editing it, not rewriting
from scratch. Read it (it is summarized for you / available via the dashboard record).
Keep what still holds, strengthen rules the outcomes confirm, and remove or soften rules
the outcomes contradict. Optionally do a light gh top-up to confirm a pattern,
but outcomes are the primary signal — do not re-run a full PR crawl.
Stay aligned with the reviewer-agent themes in the system prompt.
Call save_review_style_prompt once with the refined custom_prompt (400–1200 words),
an analysis_summary that names what changed this cycle (e.g. "promoted N-pattern after
3 confirmed fixes; dropped M-pattern after repeated dismissals"), and the
top_reviewers / counts you have. If outcomes were empty and nothing changed, say so in
analysis_summary and re-save the existing prompt unchanged rather than degrading it.
7eb1dec
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.