keyvaluesoftwaresystems/kv-skills · Archived

human-review-pack

Assemble a concise, evidence-backed PR/release review pack before approval — what changed and why, impact, the verify proof, reviewer findings (fixed and deferred), and the exact decision needed. Read-only; writes the pack. Front door for /review-pack.

First seen Jul 3, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add keyvaluesoftwaresystems/kv-skills --skill human-review-pack

Stronger alternatives

This repository is archived — consider an actively maintained alternative.

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from keyvaluesoftwaresystems/kv-skills · top by installs.

npx skills add keyvaluesoftwaresystems/kv-skills

Browse all from keyvaluesoftwaresystems/kv-skills

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Repository health

Stars 3
License licenses
Default branch main
Open issues 0
Status Archived

Skill metadata

Parsed from SKILL.md frontmatter.

Allowed toolsRead, Grep, Glob, Bash, Write

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 2,848 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 279 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 10 installs

SKILL.md

human-review-pack

Assemble everything a human needs to approve a PR or release — with evidence, not claims. Read-only. The pack must let a reviewer decide in minutes and must not overstate readiness.

Steps

  1. Collect the diff summary — changed files/areas per stack; new endpoints/migrations/UI.
  2. Pull the proof — the /verify reports and .kv/last-verify.json markers per stack;

the QA suite result. If proof is missing or status:"fail", say so — do not claim green.

  1. Pull the reviewer findings.sdlc/<slug>/architecture-review.md and each stack's

reviews/summary.md; separate what was fixed from what is deferred/accepted.

  1. Assess risk & release readiness — migrations, flags, rollout/backout, data impact.
  2. Write the pack and state the exact decision required.

The pack must include (with evidence/links)

  1. What changed — feature summary + per-stack change list.
  2. Why — link the PRD/HLD; the problem solved.
  3. Files changed — grouped by area; call out anything security/auth/data-sensitive.
  4. API / DB / UI impact — contract changes (breaking?), migrations (+ rollback), new UI states.
  5. Tests & proof — commands run and pass/fail (from /verify); coverage vs threshold;

QA journeys covered; screenshots / Playwright traces for frontend.

  1. Review findings fixed — with the reviewer + severity.
  2. Findings intentionally NOT fixed — each with a reason and risk acceptance.
  3. Risks & limitations — known issues, perf/scale caveats, follow-ups.
  4. Rollout & backout — flag state, phased plan, metrics to watch, how to revert.
  5. Decision needed — approve / changes requested / reject, and exactly what to approve

(e.g. merge order backend → frontend).

Edge cases to represent honestly

  • Partial green — some checks pass, one is flaky/red → say it plainly; don't average it away.
  • Deferred blockers — a major finding accepted for later needs explicit sign-off and a ticket.
  • Missing proof — no verify marker, or status:"fail" → the pack recommends "not ready".
  • Breaking contract change — surface prominently with the consumer migration plan.
  • Risky migration / irreversible step — flag as requiring extra human attention.

Output

Write .sdlc/<slug>/review-pack.md. Return pack_path. Never claim readiness without the proof to back it — the review pack is a decision aid, not a rubber stamp.