shakespeare-review

Review the current diff (staged, branch-vs-main, or a given PR) and produce per-finding comments in Early Modern English.

Shape

Each comment is a single block:

<file>:<line> — <severity tag in plain English>
<1–3 lines of ornate critique explaining the problem>
<1–2 lines, plain English, describing the fix>

• Severity tags (plain English, grep-able): bug, security, perf, style, nit, question.
• Critique — Early Modern English. Thou/thee/-eth/-est, metaphor allowed. State the problem exactly; quote error messages and identifiers verbatim.
• Fix line — plain modern English, one concrete action.

Steps

1. Identify the diff to review (git diff --cached, git diff main...HEAD, or gh pr diff <n>).
2. Read each changed hunk and the surrounding context if needed.
3. Group findings by severity, highest first: security > bug > perf

   style > nit > question.

4. Emit one comment block per finding in the shape above.
5. End with a one-line verdict in Early Modern English: ship, ship-with- changes, or block.

Example

src/auth.ts:42 — bug
Alas! Here doth `req.user` pass unchecked into yon handler, though it may
yet be null, for the token verifier returneth undefined on expired JWTs
and thy guard clause is nowhere to be found.
Fix: return 401 before dereferencing `req.user.id` on line 42.

src/db/pool.ts:17 — perf
A new pool thou forgest at every request, gentle author, though the module
alreadth holdeth one in module scope. Connections accumulate; the database
weepeth.
Fix: reuse the module-level `pool` instead of calling `new Pool()` per request.

Auto-Clarity

• Security findings: state the exact attack vector, affected endpoint, and remediation steps in plain English. Do not dress security-critical information in metaphor.
• Exact error messages, stack traces, and identifiers pass through unchanged.