Repo-specific review guidance for warp

Prerequisite: install the parent skill

This skill specializes the core review-pr skill (named in the specializes frontmatter field) and is not functional on its own. Before applying its guidance, confirm the parent skill is installed and resolvable at .agents/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md. If it is missing, install it first by copying the skill directory from the source declared in the specializes_source frontmatter field (warpdotdev/common-skills:.agents/skills/review-pr). Then continue with the guidance below.

This file is a companion to the core review-pr skill. It does not redefine the review output schema, severity labels, safety rules, or evidence rules. It only specializes the override categories the core skill marks as overridable.

Repo-specific style and recurring review patterns

• Check every PR against the testing guidelines in .agents/skills/rust-unit-tests/SKILL.md and .agents/skills/gui-integration-test/SKILL.md: flag tests the PR adds that those skills would call out, and new code that should have a test and doesn't. Treat a clear violation of these guidelines as ⚠️ [IMPORTANT], not a nit.
• When a PR is clearly a V0 or initial implementation, frame robustness suggestions such as timeouts, retries, and lifecycle management as optional future work rather than blocking concerns, unless they risk correctness, security, data loss, or a persistent UI hang.
• For Rust changes, apply the repository conventions from AGENTS.md: avoid unnecessary type annotations, prefer imports over long path qualifiers, name context parameters ctx and place them last, remove unused parameters instead of prefixing them with _, and prefer inline format arguments in macros.
• Audit the comments a PR adds or changes against the "Comments" guidance under "Development Guidelines" in AGENTS.md — comments carry a maintenance cost, so a new comment should earn its place. Check each added/changed comment individually against every named sub-rule (Minimalist Comments, Strictly "Why" Only, No Line-by-Line Narrations, Clean Docstrings, Single-source of documentation, Don't enumerate function call sites, No "transformation comments") rather than forming one overall impression of the comment's quality. Common issues to flag: comments that restate what the code already says instead of explaining non-obvious why; "transformation" comments that describe the edit rather than the current state (e.g. "this used to ..."); doc comments that narrate a function's internal steps or enumerate its callers; explanations duplicated at a call site or reference that the declaration's doc comment already covers; and existing comments removed as collateral of an otherwise unrelated change. Read the full list in AGENTS.md rather than relying on these examples alone. A comment that is technically accurate, well-written, or explains a subtle/important issue is not exempt from these rules — do not let those qualities substitute for the rule-by-rule check. Treat a confirmed violation as ⚠️ [IMPORTANT], not a nit.
• When a PR adds or changes calls to log macros (log::* / safe_*), review the level choice against .agents/skills/logging-and-error-reporting/SKILL.md: using log::error! for a failure that should be a Sentry issue (only report_error! and panics create issues — log::* at Error/Warn/Info are just breadcrumbs), an inappropriate level for hot paths, and secrets/PII in Info-and-above logs (use the safe_* macros for sensitive detail). For report_error! / report_if_error! calls, run the mandatory audit below instead of relying on a narrative pass.
• Avoid wildcard _ match arms when an enum can reasonably be matched exhaustively; exhaustive matches are preferred so future variants are surfaced during review.
• For new or changed feature flags, prefer high-level runtime checks with FeatureFlag::YourFlag.is_enabled() over #[cfg(...)] unless the code cannot compile without a compile-time gate.
• Flag nested or redundant TerminalModel locking when the call stack may already hold the model lock. Prefer passing locked references down the stack and keeping lock scopes short.
• In WarpUI code, flag inline MouseStateHandle::default() usage during render or event handling. Mouse state handles should be created during construction and then cloned/referenced where needed.
• For user-facing UI changes, mention missing validation only when it is tied to a concrete risk or when the PR changes behavior that should be verified visually.

Pre-Verdict Audit: error-reporting form

This specializes the core skill's Pre-Verdict Audit (error-reporting category). Whenever the diff adds or changes a report_error! or report_if_error! call, this audit is mandatory, no matter how large the diff is — a holistic read-through is not sufficient, and skimming past most of a large migration is exactly how the mass log::error! → report_error! migration merged this form of bug undetected.

Before drafting the body or choosing a verdict: list every report_error! / report_if_error! call the diff adds or changes, one by one with its file:line. For each one, check it against .agents/skills/logging-and-error-reporting/SKILL.md (rules 1–5 and the Anti-patterns block define the exact forms; this list is a lookup index, not a restatement) for:

• a real, typed error demoted into extra: instead of reported as the payload
• a typed error stringified into the grouping message (anyhow!("{e}") / "{e:?}") instead of preserved via .context() / anyhow::Error::new
• per-instance/variable data interpolated into the grouping message instead of carried via .context() / extra:
• the same failure reported more than once instead of once at the sink ("Report once, at the sink")

Also confirm hot/per-frame or per-message paths use ReportErrorLogMode::OncePerRun where the skill calls for it. Treat a confirmed violation as ⚠️ [IMPORTANT]. The enumerated list is the evidence this audit ran — do not substitute a summary like "spot-checked the report_error! sites."

Behavioral or UI-impacting changes and visual evidence

• If the PR changes anything user-visible (UI components, layout, styling, copy in surfaces users see, terminal/Warp app visuals, or other behavior a user can perceive), analyze both pr_description.txt and any PR comments available in the workflow context for attached screenshots, GIFs, or videos demonstrating the change end to end.
  • Treat markdown image/video embeds (![...](...), <img ...>, <video ...>), GitHub user-attachment links (e.g. https://github.com/user-attachments/..., https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/...), Loom links, and similar hosted media as valid evidence.
  • The Screenshots / Videos section from .github/pull_request_template.md being present but empty does not count as evidence.
  • Unit tests, integration tests, git diff --check, code-path descriptions, and other textual explanations may supplement visual evidence but do not replace it when visual proof is required.
• If the change is behavioral or UI-impacting and no screenshots or videos are attached in the description or comments, you may add an inline or summary-level comment requesting them. Use wording such as: "For this user-facing change, please include screenshots or a screen recording demonstrating it working end to end."
• Missing visual evidence is blocking only when the request, brief, or spec explicitly required visual proof. In that case, when the change can be manually tested, set the final recommendation in the top-level body ## Verdict section to Request changes, even if no other blocking issues were found; the top-level verdict field must be "REJECT" to match. Otherwise, missing visual evidence is not a finding — ordinary tests and checks are sufficient.
• Author environment limitations (e.g., headless runner, no desktop, environment can't capture) do not exempt a change that explicitly required visual proof. Suggest capturing the recording from a local desktop run or from a remote environment with desktop/computer-use support (for example, a coding agent such as Oz with computer use enabled). Reply with something like: "This change is user-facing, so a screenshot or short recording is still required. If a local desktop isn't available, you can capture it from a coding agent that supports computer use (Oz is one option — see Warp's computer use docs) and attach it here." Set the verdict to Request changes.
• Exempt visual evidence only when the user-visible behavior truly cannot be meaningfully shown visually (for example, changes affecting only screen readers or non-visual side effects). If so, briefly state why screenshots or recordings would not be meaningful. When visual proof is required, never exempt based on limitations of the author's environment.
• TUI caveat: for changes to the headless TUI (crates/warp_tui or the cell-grid element library at crates/warpui_core/src/elements/tui), acceptable "visual evidence" is a terminal transcript, a render_to_lines / TuiBuffer::to_lines snapshot diff, or a ./script/run-tui capture — NOT a computer_use screenshot or real-display recording (those are for the GUI desktop app). See the tui-verify-change skill. The MouseStateHandle ownership rule still applies to TUI code: the TUI's hover/click elements (TuiHoverable, tui_collapsible) are built on the shared MouseStateHandle and must own the handle outside render (created once, reused) so hover/click state survives rebuilt element trees — so flag inline MouseStateHandle::default() there too. Only the GUI's pixel-based hit-testing specifics are GUI-only.
• If the PR is not user-visible at all (e.g. pure refactor, internal tools, build scripts, backend-only code, tests, or documentation), do not request screenshots or videos.

User-facing strings

• Flag interpolated text that would read unnaturally at runtime or combine sentence fragments with the wrong casing.
• Link text should be descriptive rather than bare URLs or generic "click here" labels.
• Verify that product terminology is consistent across related UI, comments, workflow messages, and errors in the same PR.

Graceful degradation and observability

• When optional dynamic data such as URLs, session links, workflow links, issue numbers, or metadata may be absent, prefer omitting the element or showing a short fallback over rendering empty or broken output.
• Do not suggest removing session links, workflow URLs, or diagnostic context from error paths. Those links are important for debugging failed automation and user reports.
• Prefer generic, user-safe error text in user-visible surfaces, but keep enough structured logging or diagnostic context for maintainers to investigate failures.