Commit-by-Commit Code Review

VerifiedCaution

Reviews PR changes commit by commit, delegating to a reviewer subagent and strictly validating returned findings to avoid misattributed sync-merged changes.

Sby Skills Guide Bot
DevelopmentAdvanced
10/21/2026
Claude CodeCodex
#code-review#git#pull-requests#commit-analysis#subagents

Recommended for

Automated summary

Reviews a pull request or feature branch commit by commit, so code brought in by sync-merges from the base branch is not attributed to the author.

Strengths

  • Separates the branch's own commits from sync-merges using `--first-parent`, with `--no-merges` as a fallback, so base-branch code is not blamed on the PR author.
  • Delegates large PRs to a `reviewer` subagent with a bounded provenance packet, then mechanically validates the returned result before surfacing it.
  • States explicit dispatch thresholds: run inline for 1–2 commits or under ~200 lines, delegate at 3+ commits or a diff above ~400 lines.
  • Draws a clear scope boundary by declining feedback on uncommitted edits and on quality questions that lack PR or branch context.

Limitations

  • The supplied text cuts off mid-way through the “Context Preflight” step, so the expected format for requirements, conventions and findings is not fully specified.
  • Assumes a named `reviewer` subagent (or the Codex CLI) and describes no fallback when neither is available.
  • Tightly coupled to a git branch-and-PR workflow; unusable on non-git repositories or uncommitted work.
When to use it

Use it when a feature branch carries several commits and you need a review that faithfully credits the author without mixing in synced base-branch changes.

When not to use it

Avoid it for reviewing uncommitted edits or answering general code-quality questions with no identified branch or PR.

Security analysis

Caution
Quality score78/100

The skill only runs read-only git commands and orchestrates a review via the Agent tool (or a codex exec subprocess). There are no destructive commands, no credential/secret handling, no network exfiltration, and it explicitly limits network authority. The use of Bash and subagent/subprocess spawning is powerful but applied to a legitimate code-review purpose, so it rates caution rather than risky. No embedded prompt-injection attempts were found in the content.

Findings
  • •Uses Bash to run git inspection commands (git log/show/diff/branch) — all read-only, but still shell execution.
  • •Dispatches to an Agent subagent and optionally spawns a `codex exec` subprocess, which is a powerful capability (launches another agentic process).
  • •Reads broad context sources (user-scope, PR/Jira, .agents/review-lessons.md, repo rules) — legitimate but touches potentially sensitive project data.
How this analysis is made

Examples

Review current branch against main
Review my current branch against main, commit by commit, and skip any code that came in from sync-merges.
Review a PR against develop
/code-review develop — review the commits on this branch one at a time and flag anything that looks misattributed.
Large branch, delegate to reviewer
Review feature/payments-refactor against release/2.4; there are about a dozen commits and a big diff, so delegate to the reviewer subagent and validate its result before showing me.

name: code-review description: "Review a PR or feature branch commit by commit so sync-merged changes are not misattributed. Skip feedback on uncommitted edits (verify) and quality questions with no PR or branch context." argument-hint: "[base-branch]" allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Glob, Grep, Agent effort: max disable-model-invocation: false

Review the current branch's PR changes per-commit.

Base branch: $ARGUMENTS (if empty, infer from branch naming or ask)

Current Context

  • Branch: !git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "N/A"
  • Commits on branch: !git log --oneline main..HEAD 2>/dev/null || git log --oneline -10 2>/dev/null || echo "N/A"

When to dispatch to reviewer agent

For PRs with many commits or a large diff, spawn the reviewer subagent via the Agent tool to keep per-commit analysis out of the main context. Run the steps below inline only for small PRs.

Use inline when:

  • 1–2 unique commits
  • Diff under ~200 lines
  • Review scope is narrow (single feature or fix)

Dispatch to reviewer when:

  • 3+ unique commits
  • Diff exceeds ~400 lines
  • Multiple modules touched

Dispatch to a separate context to keep the main thread clean:

  • Claude Code: Agent(subagent_type: "reviewer", description: "<short>", prompt: "Base branch: <base>. Focus: <optional>. Branch: <current>. Unique commit/surface inventory: <...>. Requirement/convention source inventory: <...>.")
  • Codex CLI: codex exec with the same focused prompt and provenance packet. Codex's multi_agent_v1.spawn_agent is explicit-request-only (not for auto-dispatch), so spawn a codex exec subprocess instead.

The parent completes Steps 1–2 before dispatch. Do NOT re-run delegated per-commit analysis, synthesize missing preflight content, or retry an invalid return into success. Before surfacing it, mechanically validate:

  1. Unique-commit inventory appears before Context Preflight, which appears before findings.
  2. Requirements, Conventions, Impact, Tests, and Unknowns are all present and non-empty or explicitly none.
  3. Every Impact/Tests [seed:...] SHA/path/symbol-or-@file exists in the dispatched unique-commit inventory; a sync-merged seed is invalid.
  4. Every returned requirement, convention, Unknown, and finding-context source ID exists in the dispatched inventories; all available requirements and conventions are covered; all unavailable/conflicting requirements appear under Unknowns. Requirements: none or Conventions: none is valid only when its inventory is empty.
  5. Every finding whose [context:<source-id>] is unavailable/conflicting is [status:Unverified].
  6. Every finding's [commit:<sha>] exists in the dispatched unique-commit inventory.

A valid return reports Review status: COMPLETE. An invalid return reports Review status: INCOMPLETE, includes a fenced validator result naming every failed check, and keeps delegated findings reference-only with context-dependent claims unverified.

Steps

1. Identify unique commits

<base>..HEAD already excludes commits reachable from <base>, so no extra cross-reference is needed.

Prefer --first-parent — it collapses each sync-merge from base into a single commit on the feature branch, making sync-merged code easy to identify and skip:

git log --first-parent --oneline <base>..HEAD

Fallback: if the branch has unusual merge topology and raw merge commits still appear in the output, use --no-merges to drop them entirely:

git log --no-merges --oneline <base>..HEAD

These are the ONLY commits to review. When git show <merge-commit> produces a massive diff, that diff is the sync-merged code from base — SKIP it (per Step 5 Cross-verify).

2. Context Preflight

After identifying unique commits and before inline analysis or delegation, build this bounded read-only provenance packet from only their changed surfaces:

Unique commit inventory
- <sha>: <changed paths and changed symbols>

Requirement source inventory
- <source-id>: status=<available|unavailable|conflicts-with:<source-id>> locator=<path|URL|user-scope> content=<compact requirement excerpt or access error>

Convention source inventory
- <source-id>: locator=<repository path> content=<compact relevant convention excerpt>

Read available user scope, PR/Jira requirements, active-plan criteria, repository-local AGENTS/rules, and relevant project patterns. Add no network authority; record unavailable remote context instead. If .agents/review-lessons.md exists, read it as past review evidence, NOT as convention: its Adopted entries rank below every written project rule and never override one, Candidates are context only, and Rejected points must not be re-raised as findings. Its absence is recorded as absent — never a reason to collect, which is /review-lessons, the only network-touching step in that loop. Use code-graph support when available, falling back to repository search and language-native tools. Keep discovery relevant to the unique changed surfaces rather than auditing the whole repository.

Present the result before findings:

Context Preflight
- Requirements: [source:<source-id>] <available requirement>, or none
- Conventions: [source:<source-id>] <relevant convention>, or none
- Impact: [seed:<unique-sha>:<changed-path>:<changed-symbol|@file>] <impacted target>, or none
- Tests: [seed:<unique-sha>:<changed-path>:<changed-symbol|@file>] <test path or observable>, or none
- Unknowns: [source:<source-id> status:unavailable|conflict] <detail>, or none
- Past lessons: [lesson:<id> state:adopted|candidate type:correctness|convention|preference] <point>, or none

Use canonical @file for config, documentation, assets, deletions, or any file-level change without a language symbol. Impacted targets and related tests may be outside the diff, but every seed must be in the unique-commit inventory. Never seed discovery from a branch-wide diff or sync-merged surface. Surface conflicting requirements without resolving them silently.

Every finding must carry [commit:<unique-sha>], [context:<source-id>|none], and [status:Verified|Unverified]. A finding dependent on unavailable or conflicting context is Unverified, not asserted.

3. Review per-commit

For each unique commit:

git show <commit> --stat   # scope check
git show <commit>          # full diff

Do NOT use git diff <base>..HEAD for line-level review — it includes sync-merged changes.

4. Branch diff for context only

git diff <base>..HEAD --stat is acceptable for overall scope, but flag issues only if they trace back to a unique commit.

5. Cross-verify before flagging

Before reporting any issue:

  1. Identify which commit introduced it
  2. If the commit is NOT unique (i.e., from a sync merge), do NOT flag it

6. Next step (optional)

After fixes are committed, suggest running /pr-body to generate the PR description.

Rules

  • Only review changes from unique commits (Step 1)
  • Run Context Preflight before findings and preserve its provenance tags
  • Match the project's language and conventions
  • Keep feedback actionable and concise

From the file to a first result

The download contains exactly the content displayed on this page. This copy may differ from the latest version in the source repository.

View the source and supporting files

This download contains SKILL.md only. Any scripts, references, templates and dependencies are not included. Get the required files from the source, preserving their directory structure, before continuing.

1. Download the file

Download SKILL.md

From the root of a test project, save the file as .skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3/SKILL.md, or use the command below. This folder is for inspecting the skill before installation.

Command for macOS/Linux or WSL: requires a POSIX shell and curl. On Windows without WSL, use the download button and create the folder manually.

mkdir -p '.skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3' && curl --fail --show-error --location 'https://skills-guides.com/api/skills/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3/download' --output '.skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3/SKILL.md.part' && mv '.skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3/SKILL.md.part' '.skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3/SKILL.md'

2. Check prerequisites

Read SKILL.md before using it. If it references scripts or external services, inspect them and prepare the required access in your test environment.

Tools declared by the author (check availability in your agent): Bash, Read, Glob, Grep, Agent

No recognized prerequisites section in this file. This does not mean it is self-contained: libraries, tools and access requirements may be mentioned elsewhere in the content or source repository.

The platforms on this page are catalog indications. The paths below follow tool documentation; they do not prove this skill has been run in those tools. No minimum tool version is confirmed for this listing.

3. Load the skill

After inspection, copy the complete folder into your project using one of the commands below, then open a new tool session. The command stops if a folder with the same name already exists: compare the files before replacing it.

Claude Code
test -f '.skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3/SKILL.md' && test -s '.skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3/SKILL.md' && mkdir -p '.claude/skills' && test ! -e '.claude/skills/code-review' && cp -R '.skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3' '.claude/skills/code-review'

Codex
test -f '.skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3/SKILL.md' && test -s '.skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3/SKILL.md' && mkdir -p '.agents/skills' && test ! -e '.agents/skills/code-review' && cp -R '.skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3' '.agents/skills/code-review'

OpenSkills

OpenSkills must already be installed. The local install/read procedure is checked with OpenSkills 1.5.0, which requires Node.js ≥ 20.6.0. Catalog slugs are not resolved automatically.

Official OpenSkills installation
openskills install './.skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3'

openskills read 'commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3'

Reading should display the installed file content and its base directory. It does not run the skill or install its dependencies.

For an agent that reads AGENTS.md, then sync the index. This command changes AGENTS.md: review the diff before using it.

openskills sync

Manual method or another tool: attach SKILL.md to a conversation, or open it in an agent that can read files. Include any required supporting resources. No universal folder is recognized by every tool.

4. Try a first task

Use a short, synthetic input: an API endpoint, a small document or an interface brief. In a new conversation, attach the file or give the agent its path, then adapt this request:

Read .skill-downloads/commit-by-commit-code-review-mvda87i3/SKILL.md and apply its instructions to this example: [describe a test input]. Identify any missing files, dependencies or access. Produce the result requested by the skill without inventing data or running unreviewed scripts.

Expected result: output matching the skill instructions, or a precise list of missing prerequisites. A read confirmation alone does not validate a first use. If an external resource is unavailable, that path remains untested.

Related skills