Systematic PR review workflow aligned with Drift Policy. Use when reviewing pull requests that touch src/drift/, tests/, or scoring logic.
Scanned 8/31/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add mick-gsk/drift --skill drift-pr-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Drift Pr Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/mick-gsk-drift-pr-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: drift-pr-review
description: "Systematic PR review workflow aligned with Drift Policy. Use when reviewing pull requests that touch src/drift/, tests/, or scoring logic."
---
# Drift PR Review Skill
## Purpose
Guide Copilot agents through a policy-conformant, evidence-based pull request review for the drift repository.
## When to Use
- Reviewing PRs that change `src/drift/`, `tests/`, or `docs-site/`
- Evaluating signal quality, scoring changes, or output format changes
- Checking benchmark evidence for new features
## Strukturierte Review-Checkliste
**Pflicht-Referenz:** Die vollständige Review-Checkliste liegt unter `.github/prompts/_partials/review-checkliste.md`.
Bei jedem adversarialen Review wird diese Checkliste Punkt für Punkt abgearbeitet.
Der Reviewer dokumentiert pro Punkt **Ja / Nein / N/A** mit Kurzbegründung.
## Review Workflow
### Step 1: Policy Gate
Before reviewing code, verify the PR passes the Policy Gate:
```
### Drift Policy Gate
- Aufgabe: [PR title / description]
- Zulassungskriterium erfüllt: [JA / NEIN] → [which criterion]
- Ausschlusskriterium ausgelöst: [JA / NEIN] → [if YES: which]
- Roadmap-Phase: [1 / 2 / 3 / 4] — blockiert durch höhere Phase: [JA / NEIN]
- Entscheidung: [ZULÄSSIG / ABBRUCH]
- Begründung: [one sentence]
```
If the gate fails, comment with the reason and suggest what should be prioritized instead.
### Step 2: Signal Quality Checklist
For every new or modified finding/signal, verify all 5 mandatory elements:
- [ ] **Technical traceability** — finding points to specific code location
- [ ] **Reproducibility** — finding can be reproduced from the same input
- [ ] **Unique cause attribution** — finding maps to exactly one root cause
- [ ] **Clear justification** — rationale is documented and understandable
- [ ] **Actionable next step** — a concrete remediation or investigation step exists
A finding missing any element is **non-compliant** with Policy §13.
### Step 3: Benchmark Evidence
For feature PRs (`feat:` commits), verify:
- [ ] `benchmark_results/v*_feature_evidence.json` artifact exists
- [ ] Self-analysis score is equal or better than baseline
- [ ] No regression in precision/recall on known test repos
### Step 4: Self-Score Delta
If `src/drift/` is modified:
```bash
drift analyze --repo . --format json
```
Compare the composite score against the CI threshold (currently 0.47).
A score drop below threshold **blocks** the PR.
### Step 5: Test Coverage
- [ ] New behavior has corresponding test(s) in `tests/`
- [ ] `make check` passes (lint + typecheck + tests + self-analysis)
- [ ] No new `# type: ignore` or `# noqa` without justification
### Step 6: Priority Compliance
Verify the change respects the priority hierarchy:
```
Glaubwürdigkeit > Signalpräzision > Verständlichkeit > FP/FN-Reduktion > Einführbarkeit > Trend > Features
```
A lower-priority change must not compromise a higher-priority property.
## Review Comment Template
```markdown
### PR Review — Drift Policy
**Policy Gate:** ✅ ZULÄSSIG / ❌ ABBRUCH
**Signal Quality (§13):** ✅ All 5 elements / ❌ Missing: [list]
**Benchmark Evidence:** ✅ Present / ⚠️ Missing / N/A
**Self-Score Delta:** ✅ ≥ 0.47 / ❌ Below threshold
**Test Coverage:** ✅ Covered / ❌ Missing tests for: [list]
**Priority Compliance:** ✅ OK / ❌ Violates: [explanation]
**Summary:** [1-2 sentences]
```
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!