Write review comments that land by labeling severity and separating genuine questions from directives. Use when leaving comments on a pull request or coaching someone on how theirs read.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add Amey-Thakur/AI-SKILLS --skill code-review-comments --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Code Review Comments?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/amey-thakur-code-review-comments)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: code-review-comments
description: Write review comments that land by labeling severity and separating genuine questions from directives. Use when leaving comments on a pull request or coaching someone on how theirs read.
---
# Code review comments
A review comment interrupts a person mid-flow. It lands when the author can
tell in one read how much it matters and what to do next. Comments that bury
a blocker among nitpicks, or dress a firm objection as a coy question, waste
both people's time and stall the merge.
## Method
1. **Label severity up front.** Prefix each comment: `blocking:`, `nit:`,
`question:`, `praise:`, following a convention like Conventional
Comments. The author triages a 30-comment review in seconds when severity
is explicit, and guesses wrong when it is not.
2. **Separate directives from questions honestly.** If a change must happen,
say so: "blocking: this leaks the DB connection on the error path." If you
are genuinely unsure, ask a real question and mean it. A rhetorical "did
you consider...?" that actually demands a change reads as passive.
3. **Say why, and show how where it is cheap.** "This N+1 fires one query
per row; batch it with a single `WHERE id IN (...)`" beats "inefficient."
The reason lets the author generalize; a GitHub suggestion block lets them
accept the fix in one click.
4. **Comment on the code, never the coder.** "This function does three
things," not "you always over-scope." Keep it to the diff in front of you;
opinions about someone's habits belong in a private conversation.
5. **Cap the nits, or automate them.** More than a few `nit:` on style means
a linter rule is missing. Push spacing, import order, and naming casing
into `prettier`, `eslint`, or `ruff` so review spends on logic.
6. **Reach a verdict.** Do not leave a review in limbo with ten comments and
no decision. If nothing blocks, approve and trust the author with the
nits. Reserve "request changes" for real blockers.
## Litmus tests
- Can the author sort your comments into "must fix now" and "later" without
asking you?
- Does each blocking comment state a concrete failure, not a preference?
- Would you say the comment out loud, in these words, to the author's face?
## Boundaries
Team norms on approval gates and required reviewers override personal style:
follow the repo's `CODEOWNERS` and review policy. A design disagreement too
large for a line comment belongs in a call or a design doc, not a buried
thread.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!