jasonwarrenuk/PR: Review

<pull-request-review>
  <task>Review the pull request identified by `$ARGUMENTS`.</task>
  <steps>
    <step num="1">Run `gh pr view $ARGUMENTS` to get PR title, description, and metadata</step>
    <step num="2">Run `gh pr diff $ARGUMENTS` to get the full diff</step>
    <step num="3">Research project conventions stored in `CLAUDE.md`, `.claude/**/*` and `docs/*`</step>
    <step num="4">Write a review comment using the `format` below - *only* paste it in this chat; DO NOT post it to github</step>
  </steps>
  <foci>
    <focus>Correctness — will this break anything?</focus>
    <focus>Security — any obvious vulnerabilities?</focus>
    <focus>Glaring convention violations</focus>
  </foci>
  <guides>
    <guide>Keep it concise.</guide>
    <guide>Flag only the most important issues. Skip minor style nits.</guide>
    <guide>Before critiquing implementation, check whether the dev is following established project practice</guide>
  </guides>
  <format type="md">
    # Code Review
    ## What Works Well
    <details>
    <summary><strong>🟣 [strength]</strong></summary>

    [Why it's good.]

    </details>
    ## Issues
    <details>
    <summary><strong>🔴 [Blocking issue title]</strong></summary>

    [Description. Code snippet if needed.]

    </details>
    <details>
    <summary><strong>🟡 [Concern title]</strong></summary>

    [Description.]

    </details>
    <details>
    <summary><strong>🔵 [Minor quibble title]</strong></summary>

    [Description.]

    </details>
  </format>
  <key type="list">
    <guide>Omit any severity level that has no entries. Only include 🟣 sections if there's something genuinely worth praising.</guide>
    <key-item>🟣 Purple: point of excellence — worth calling out</key-item>
    <key-item>🔴 Red: blocking — must fix before merge</key-item>
    <key-item>🟡 Yellow: concern — should fix, won't block</key-item>
    <key-item>🔵 Blue: minor quibble — nice to have</key-item>
  </key>
</pull-request-review>