Ponytail Review

DietrichGebert/ponytail/skills/ponytail-review

作者 DietrichGebert9cc65d03aa2da1db7121b912d03596409ee340b8無授權條款158K 個星標收錄於 2026年10月9日更新於 2026年10月9日儲存庫今天更新

Quality review of a change: is the logic right, is it safe, does it hold under real load, is risky code tested, is it fast enough, and is every line needed. Reads the connected code, not only the diff. Each finding is explained in plain English. Use for "review this", "code review", "review the last commit", "review my PR", "is this over-engineered", /ponytail-review.

AI 產生的概覽

審查程式碼變更是否正確、安全、能承受負載、有測試、夠快且精簡,並輸出審查報告。

功能
讀取指定的變更(未提交或已暫存的變更、分支、PR 連結或檔案),並閱讀相關程式碼、呼叫端、測試與 README,追蹤真實的資料流。它會找出缺陷、安全性與資料遺失風險、規模問題、缺少的測試、效能下降,以及應該刪除、重用或簡化的程式碼。最後產出一份書面報告,分為必須修復、應該修復與可選優化三組,包含編號的發現、結論與精簡行數。它只列出發現,不修改程式碼。
適用情境
當你希望審查某個變更時使用,例如 PR、分支、最近一次提交或未提交的工作。適用於「review this」「code review」「is this over-engineered」等請求。它用於針對預期負載評判具體變更,而不是撰寫或修復程式碼本身。
執行需求
不需要指令碼或套件,僅為指示。需要存取被審查的程式碼,包括差異、涉及的檔案、呼叫端、測試,以及 README、部署設定等儲存庫文件。

Review a change like the senior developer who will be paged when it breaks. Order of importance: correct, safe, holds under load, tested, fast, lean. Lean still matters: every extra line must be read, tested and fixed later. This is a report the user asked for, so give it in full.

1. Understand first

  • Review what the user names: uncommitted or staged changes, a branch, a PR link, or files. Nothing named: the uncommitted changes, or the last commit if there are none.
  • Read the diff, then the code it touches: callers of every changed function, the functions it calls, the tests, the README.
  • Trace the real flow: where data comes in, what is stored, what goes out.
  • A change can break code it does not touch. When a signature, return value or behavior changes, grep every caller.
  • Find the expected load in the repo (README, deploy config): one person running a script, or many users and processes at once. Judge scale against that, and say which load you assumed.

2. Look for

  1. Bug: wrong result, crash, missed edge case (empty, zero, last item, rounding, time zones), a caller broken by the change, a fix applied in one caller while the shared function stays broken.
  2. Risk: security holes (injection, weak randomness, secrets, missing checks on input from users), data loss (errors swallowed, writes in the wrong order, no transaction).
  3. Scale: fine for one user, wrong for many: check-then-write races, the same work done by every process, memory or lists that only grow, a query per item, O(n^2) on big input, per-process state that must be shared.
  4. Missing test: risky new logic (a branch, a parser, money, security, data writes, a bug fix) with no test that fails when it breaks. One good test, not coverage.
  5. Speed: big slowdowns are problems. Small wins (work repeated in a hot loop) are suggestions; some software counts every millisecond.
  6. Lean: code that should not exist or should be smaller.
    • delete: dead code, unused options, speculative features
    • reuse: the repo already has this helper (name the path)
    • stdlib / native: the standard library or platform already does it; a new dependency for a few lines
    • yagni: abstraction with one implementation, config nobody sets
    • merge: near-copies that must change together
    • split: one function doing several unrelated jobs, so it is hard to read or test. Split by job, never by line count, and never into helpers that exist only to make a function shorter.

3. Check before you report

  • Every finding needs a concrete case: "this input or situation leads to this wrong result". No case, no finding.
  • Re-read the lines and confirm: the caller exists, the value can really be empty, the code really is unused.
  • A shortcut marked with a shortcut: (or older ponytail:) comment that names its limit is a decision, not a finding, unless the expected load already crosses it.
  • Propose the smallest fix that works. Prefer fixes that delete code. Never add layers, frameworks or config the problem does not need.
  • No style taste, no "consider", no vague worries.

4. Output

Very simple English: short sentences, everyday words. Explain a technical term the first time you use it. The reader may never have seen this code.

Start with What this change does: in two or three sentences.

Then the findings in three groups, skip empty groups:

  • Must fix: bug, security, data loss, breaks at the expected load.
  • Should fix: risky code without a test, real slowness, duplication, a function that mixes jobs, code that should not exist.
  • Nice to have: small speed-ups, shorter forms.

Number findings across all groups, so the user can say "fix 2 and 5". Every finding has all four parts, each one or two short sentences:

  1. Orders land on the wrong day (billing/close_day.py:L40-52)
    • What this is: At midnight this job closes the day and bills all orders of that day.
    • Problem: It takes "today" from the server clock, which runs in UTC. An order placed at 00:30 in Berlin is billed on the day before.
    • Fix: Compute the day once in the shop's time zone: datetime.now(ZoneInfo("Europe/Berlin")).date(). One line, nothing else changes.
    • If we skip it: Late orders show the wrong date, and accounting fixes them by hand.

End with:

  • Verdict: Ship. or Verdict: fix 1 and 3 first.
  • Lean: -<N> lines possible. when lean findings exist.
  • Not checked: one line, if something mattered and you could not check it.

Nothing found: What this change does:, then Looks good. Ship. and one line on what you checked.

Lists findings, changes no code.

來源與署名

來源:DietrichGebert/ponytail位於skills/ponytail-review提交9cc65d0

授權條款: 無授權條款

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架

更多來自 DietrichGebert/ponytail 的技能