consulting-adrs
Check a design, change, pull request, plan, or threat model against Bitwarden's Architecture Decision Records (ADRs), or locate…
Use this skill when emitting inline review comments, whether posted to a GitHub pull request or written to a local file under caller-declared local-file output. Apply when formatting comments following Bitwarden engineering standards with severity emojis, clear explanations, and
$ npx -y skills add bitwarden/ai-plugins --skill posting-bitwarden-review-comments --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/posting-bitwarden-review-commentsContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Use this skill when emitting inline review comments, whether posted to a GitHub pull request or written to a local file under caller-declared local-file output. Apply when formatting comments following Bitwarden engineering standards with severity emojis, clear explanations, and
name: posting-bitwarden-review-comments description: Use this skill when emitting inline review comments, whether posted to a GitHub pull request or written to a local file under caller-declared local-file output. Apply when formatting comments following Bitwarden engineering standards with severity emojis, clear explanations, and actionable suggestions. Use after findings are classified and ready to emit. DO NOT USE when posting summary comments.
Check destinations **in this order** — use the first match:
| Destination | How to Detect | Action | | ----------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | **Local output in effect** | An `OUTPUT: local files` line in the prompt's leading directive block, **or** a caller that passes local files as the destination in effect. Check this first, and never key it on which tools happen to be available | Write to `review-inline-comments.md` in working directory | | Local target, no GitHub destination | The review target is local changes and no caller declared a GitHub destination | Write to `review-inline-comments.md` in working directory | | GitHub pull request | Neither of the above | Post via `mcp__github_inline_comment__create_inline_comment` |
Under either local destination, format every finding exactly as below and write them all to the one file — do not post, whatever comment tools happen to be available.
On a GitHub pull request, a finding raised again in an existing thread goes as a reply in that thread, so its history stays in one place. Call `mcp__github_replies__add_reply_to_pull_request_comment` with the `database_id` of the thread's first comment as `commentId`, the owner and repository from the threads data's top-level `repository`, and the pull request number as `pullNumber`, which the tool requires whenever a reply has a body. The reply uses the same finding format as an inline comment. When that tool is unavailable, the thread's first comment has no `database_id`, or the reply call fails, post a new inline comment instead.
1. **MUST** Analyze all changes before emitting anything 2. **MUST** Use inline comments for code-specific findings 3. **MUST** Use the Bitwarden finding format 4. **FORBIDDEN**: Do NOT add "Strengths", "Highlights", or positive observations sections. 5. **FORBIDDEN** Do NOT post praise-only inline comments 6. **FORBIDDEN**: Do NOT post PR metadata issues (title, description, test plan) as inline comments. These go in the summary only.
**CRITICAL: Never use # followed by numbers** - GitHub will autolink it to unrelated issues/PRs.
1. Writing "#1" creates a clickable link to issue/PR #1 (not your finding) 2. "Issue" is also wrong terminology (use "Finding") 3. Use "Finding" + space + number (no # symbol); aim for under 30 words in sentence
**CORRECT FORMAT:**
**WRONG (DO NOT USE):**
**Every inline comment MUST:**
1. Reference specific line(s) 2. State the problem - what breaks or what's the risk? 3. Provide actionable fix (for ❌ and ⚠️) 4. Be brief yet clear 5. Use collapsed sections for comments over 5 lines 6. Include both opening `<details>` AND closing `</details>` tags
**Visibility Rule:** Only severity + one-line description visible; everything else inside `<details>` tags.
[emoji] **[SEVERITY]**: [One-line issue description] <details> <summary>Details and fix</summary> [Code example or specific fix] [Rationale explaining why] Reference: [docs link if applicable] </details>
Invoke `Skill(posting-review-summary)` for all summary formatting and posting.
A curated collection of plugins for AI-assisted development at Bitwarden. Enables discovery and distribution of quality-controlled plugins for use with Claude Code.
Check a design, change, pull request, plan, or threat model against Bitwarden's Architecture Decision Records (ADRs), or locate…
Use when the user provides a single Jira issue key and asks whether it is still relevant, still applicable, still pending, still…
File Jira work items that stand on their own, with real ticket titles, acceptance criteria in whatever field the target project…
Use whenever the user mentions a Jira issue key and wants more than a surface-level lookup — "Read PROJ-123", "What's PROJ-123…
Use when the user is addressing pull request review comments locally and asks for help evaluating, implementing, or drafting…
Use this skill to validate findings during a code review. For each finding, run the rejection criteria and verification checks.…