ork-assess
Assess a code change, design, architecture, workflow, or competing options against explicit criteria and evidence. Use when a…
Review a pull request or branch for correctness, regressions, security, operational risk, and missing evidence. Use when a request asks to review a PR, review a diff, find real bugs, assess merge risk, or provide evidence-backed review findings. Do not use for implementation or
Claude Code
$ npx -y skills add yonatangross/orchestkit --skill ork-review-pr --agent claude-code
Codex
$ npx skills add yonatangross/orchestkit --skill ork-review-pr -a codex -y
Cursor
$ npx skills add yonatangross/orchestkit --skill ork-review-pr -a cursor -y
Gemini CLI
$ npx skills add yonatangross/orchestkit --skill ork-review-pr -a gemini-cli -y
GitHub Copilot
$ npx skills add yonatangross/orchestkit --skill ork-review-pr -a github-copilot -y
OpenCode
$ npx skills add yonatangross/orchestkit --skill ork-review-pr -a opencode -y
Windsurf
$ npx skills add yonatangross/orchestkit --skill ork-review-pr -a windsurf -y
name: ork-review-pr description: Review a pull request or branch for correctness, regressions, security, operational risk, and missing evidence. Use when a request asks to review a PR, review a diff, find real bugs, assess merge risk, or provide evidence-backed review findings. Do not use for implementation or style-only cleanup.
Stay read-only and review the actual diff in its repository context. Read the applicable instructions, trace changed behavior to its callers and tests, and prioritize correctness, security, data loss, race conditions, backwards compatibility, and evidence gaps over style.
Verify third-party API and configuration claims against the context7 MCP server (`resolve-library-id`, then `query-docs`) before reporting or dismissing a finding that turns on library behavior. A wrong recalled signature is how a review invents a bug and how it misses one.
Use one reviewer for a focused diff. For a broad or high-risk PR, fan out independent read-only passes for code-path mapping, risk review, and documentation/API verification; each must return file and line evidence. Prefer `ork_reviewer` when installed, otherwise use a fresh built-in explorer/reviewer role.
Lead with findings ordered by severity. Every finding needs a concrete location, impact, and a reproduction or reasoning path. If there are no findings, say what was checked and what was not. Do not modify files or approve/merge the PR.
The Complete AI Development Toolkit for Claude Code. 115 skills, 36 agents, 163 hooks. Install `ork` for stable (v10.x).
Assess a code change, design, architecture, workflow, or competing options against explicit criteria and evidence. Use when a…
Compare plausible implementation, architecture, product, or operational approaches before committing to one. Use when a request…
Map an unfamiliar codebase, feature, architecture, data flow, or operational path with file-backed evidence. Use when a request…
Render an answer inline as compact ASCII or box-drawing art with semantic status icons. Use for status, inventories, budgets,…
Make an approved, scoped change and prove the affected behavior. Use when a request asks to implement, build, add, or land a…
Verify that existing work is ready to merge, release, or hand off using an explicit evidence contract. Use when a request asks to…
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, modifying behavior, or…
Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the skills in this repo.