create-claude-reviewer

What this skill does

# Create Claude Code Review GitHub Action

You are creating a `claude-code-review.yml` GitHub Action workflow that automatically reviews PRs using Claude. This workflow uses `anthropics/claude-code-action@v1`.

There are two modes:
- **Linear mode** — Creates structured issues in Linear under the parent ticket (no PR comments)
- **GitHub mode** — Writes inline review comments directly on the PR using `gh`

## Context Awareness

This skill can be invoked at any point. Check conversation context — the user might reference repos already discussed, a workspace they just set up, or specific sub-repos. Use `$ARGUMENTS` if provided, otherwise infer from context.

**Important**: This workflow gets created in each working repo individually (each sub-repo in a meta-repo setup, NOT the meta-repo root). Each repo needs its own workflow because review rules and repo-specific violations differ per project.

---

## Step 1: Ask Clarifying Questions

Use `AskUserQuestion` to gather what you need. Skip anything obvious from context.

**Always ask:**
- **Linear or GitHub?** — "Should review findings be posted as Linear issues or as inline GitHub PR comments?"

**Ask if not obvious from context:**
- **Which repos?** — If in a meta-repo, which sub-repos should get the workflow? (default: all)
- **Target branch** — What branch do PRs target? (e.g., `develop`, `main`)
- **Model** — Which Claude model? (default: `claude-opus-4-6`)

**Ask only for Linear mode:**
- **Branch naming convention** — How are branches named? Need the pattern to extract ticket IDs (e.g., `wha-XXXX-description` extracts `WHA-XXXX`)
- **Linear team UUID** — What Linear team should issues be created in?
- **Linear label UUIDs** — Do they have label UUIDs for critical/warning severity? (optional, can skip)
- **Linear state preferences** — What state should review issues be created in? (default: "Todo")

---

## Step 2: Research Each Repo

For each repo that will get the workflow, read:
- `CLAUDE.md` — for repo-specific rules and violations to watch for
- `package.json` / `pyproject.toml` / `requirements.txt` — to understand the tech stack
- Existing `.github/workflows/` — check if a claude review workflow already exists

Extract from each repo:
1. **Tech stack** — language, framework (affects what review rules make sense)
2. **Repo-specific rules** — from CLAUDE.md, things the reviewer should flag as violations
3. **Existing workflow** — if one exists, ask the user if they want to replace or skip

---

## Step 3: Generate the Workflow

Create `.github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml` in each target repo.

### GitHub Mode Template

GitHub mode is simpler — no MCP config needed. Claude reviews the PR and posts inline comments using the built-in PR comment functionality.

```yaml
name: Claude Code Review

on:
  pull_request:
    types: [opened, synchronize]
    branches:
      - [TARGET_BRANCH]

jobs:
  claude-review:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    permissions:
      contents: read
      pull-requests: write
      issues: read
      id-token: write

    steps:
      - name: Checkout repository
        uses: actions/checkout@v4
        with:
          fetch-depth: 1

      - name: Run Claude Code Review
        uses: anthropics/claude-code-action@v1
        with:
          claude_code_oauth_token: ${{ secrets.CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN }}
          github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
          use_sticky_comment: true
          prompt: |
            ## PR Code Review

            You are reviewing PR #${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} on branch `${{ github.head_ref }}`.

            ### Review Focus - REAL ISSUES ONLY
            Review the PR diff for CONCRETE, SIGNIFICANT issues only:
            - **Security vulnerabilities** (injection, auth bypass, data exposure, XSS, CSRF)
            - **Performance problems** (N+1 queries, memory leaks, unbounded loops)
            - **Actual bugs** that will cause runtime errors or incorrect behavior
            [REPO_SPECIFIC_RULES]

            **DO NOT REPORT:**
            - Edge cases or rare scenarios unlikely to occur
            - Style preferences or minor code organization suggestions
            - Theoretical issues that "could" happen but probably won't
            - Nitpicks or "nice to have" improvements
            - Issues without clear, concrete impact

            ### Output Format
            For each finding, use `gh` to post an inline review comment on the specific file and line:

            ```bash
            gh api repos/${{ github.repository }}/pulls/${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}/comments \
              --method POST \
              -f body="**[Critical]** or **[Warning]**: Description of the issue and its concrete impact" \
              -f commit_id="$COMMIT_SHA" \
              -f path="path/to/file" \
              -F line=LINE_NUMBER
            ```

            Use `gh pr diff ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}` to get the diff and identify exact file paths and line numbers.

            If no significant issues are found, that's a GOOD outcome. Post a single summary comment saying the review is clean.

            **ONLY report genuine, concrete concerns with clear impact.**
          claude_args: |
            --model [MODEL]
            --allowedTools Bash(gh pr diff:*),Bash(gh pr view:*),Bash(gh api:*)
```

### Linear Mode Template

Linear mode creates structured issues in Linear, organized under the parent ticket. Requires Linear MCP config.

```yaml
name: Claude Code Review

on:
  pull_request:
    types: [opened, synchronize]
    branches:
      - [TARGET_BRANCH]

jobs:
  claude-review:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    permissions:
      contents: read
      pull-requests: write
      issues: read
      id-token: write

    steps:
      - name: Checkout repository
        uses: actions/checkout@v4
        with:
          fetch-depth: 1

      - name: Create MCP Config
        env:
          LINEAR_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.[LINEAR_SECRET_NAME] }}
        run: |
          cat > /tmp/mcp-config.json << EOF
          {
            "mcpServers": {
              "linear": {
                "command": "npx",
                "args": [
                  "-y",
                  "mcp-remote@latest",
                  "https://mcp.linear.app/mcp",
                  "--header",
                  "Authorization:Bearer ${LINEAR_TOKEN}"
                ]
              }
            }
          }
          EOF

      - name: Run Claude Code Review
        uses: anthropics/claude-code-action@v1
        with:
          claude_code_oauth_token: ${{ secrets.CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN }}
          github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
          use_sticky_comment: true
          prompt: |
            ## PR Review - Create Linear Issues

            You are reviewing PR #${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} on branch `${{ github.head_ref }}`.

            ### Step 1: Extract Linear Ticket ID
            Extract the ticket ID from the branch name. Branch format is `[BRANCH_PATTERN]`.
            The ticket ID is the `[PREFIX]-XXXX` part.

            ### Step 2: Review the PR - FOCUS ON REAL ISSUES ONLY
            Review the PR diff for CONCRETE, SIGNIFICANT issues only:
            - **Security vulnerabilities** (injection, auth bypass, data exposure, XSS, CSRF)
            - **Performance problems** (N+1 queries, memory leaks, unbounded loops)
            - **Actual bugs** that will cause runtime errors or incorrect behavior
            [REPO_SPECIFIC_RULES]

            **DO NOT REPORT:**
            - Edge cases or rare scenarios unlikely to occur
            - Style preferences or minor code organization suggestions
            - Theoretical issues that "could" happen but probably won't
            - Nitpicks or "nice to have" improvements
            - Issues without clear, concrete impact

            ### Step 3: Check Existing Issues Before Creating New Ones
            1. Look up the parent ticket using `mcp__linea