caveman-review

Ultra-compressed code review comments: location, problem, fix on one line each.

- Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. with optional severity prefix (🔴 bug:, 🟡 risk:, 🔵 nit:, ❓ q:) for mixed findings

- Strips filler language ("I noticed", "you might want", "great work") and restates-keeps exact line numbers, symbol names, concrete fixes, and the why when non-obvious

- Auto-triggers on "review this PR", "code review", "/review", or /caveman-review; outputs comments ready to paste into pull requests

- Reverts to verbose style on request; escalates security findings, architectural disagreements, and onboarding contexts to full explanations

Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.

Rules

Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. - or <file>:L<line>: ... when reviewing multi-file diffs.

Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):

- 🔴 bug: - broken behavior, will cause incident

- 🟡 risk: - works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)

- 🔵 nit: - style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore

- ❓ q: - genuine question, not a suggestion

Drop:

- "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..."

- "This is just a suggestion but..." - use nit: instead

- "Great work!", "Looks good overall but..." - say it once at the top, not per comment

- Restating what the line does - the reviewer can read the diff

- Hedging ("perhaps", "maybe", "I think") - if unsure use q: