---
name: writing-review-packets
description: Create or revise Reviews packet markdown for a code diff, including section strategy, prose, hunk references, validation, and pushing packet revisions with the Reviews CLI. Use when the user asks to write a review packet, organize a diff for review, add prose around hunk refs, update a packet for a new patchset, or push a packet to a local or hosted Reviews instance.
---

# Writing Review Packets

Use this skill when drafting packet markdown for `reviews push --packet`. A good packet is a reviewer map: it groups related hunks, explains why to look, and avoids rephrasing the diff line-by-line.

## Packet Markdown Format

Use one top-level title and `##` packet sections:

```markdown
# Packet Title

Short overview of what the review packet covers.

## Section Title

One or two sentences orienting the reviewer.

One sentence of context before the hunk when useful.

@hunk path/to/file.ex#1
```

Rules:
- Start with exactly one `#` title.
- Use `##` for review packet sections.
- Prose between hunk refs is allowed and encouraged.
- Hunk refs use `@hunk path#N`.
- Paths and hunk numbers must match the diff being pushed.

## Writing Method

1. Inspect the diff with `git diff` or the intended CLI range.
2. Identify logical review areas: persistence/schema, read model, LiveView state, rendering, styling, tests, tooling.
3. Prefer stable section titles if updating an existing packet and you want approvals to inherit.
4. Put a 1-2 sentence summary at the top of each `##` section.
5. Use `###` subheadings sparingly, only when a section truly needs scan landmarks; do not add a stock technical-overview subsection to every section.
6. Add terse hunk explainers before hunks when they help the reader know what to look for.
7. Avoid hunk explainers that restate the diff; explain context, dependency order, risk, or review intent.
8. Keep section decisions independent from hunk viewed progress in wording.

## Hunk Selection

- Cover every changed line exactly once unless intentionally grouping duplicate ref coverage is acceptable for the current tool.
- Use full hunk refs for small cohesive changes.
- If one large hunk contains multiple review topics, split the surrounding prose instead of using sliced hunk refs.
- Keep generated files, lockfiles, or purely mechanical output out of the packet unless they need review.
- If the packet is only for local review, put it in `/private/tmp` or another temporary path to avoid accidentally committing it.

## Approval Inheritance

Section approvals inherit across patchsets only when the packet section identity and refs still match well enough.

To preserve approvals:
- Keep section titles stable.
- Keep hunk refs in the same conceptual section.
- Add new sections for new work instead of rewriting the whole packet.

To intentionally invalidate approvals:
- Restructure sections around a new review strategy.
- Change section titles and hunk membership.

## Push Workflow

Use the CLI from the git checkout being reviewed:

```bash
reviews push --packet /path/to/packet.md
reviews push --update <slug> --packet /path/to/packet.md
reviews push --update <slug> --range HEAD --packet /path/to/packet.md
```

Notes:
- `--range HEAD` captures current working-tree changes.
- Default capture is usually `HEAD~1..HEAD`; use an explicit range when needed.
- If validation fails with an uncovered changed line, add or adjust hunk refs until the packet covers the diff.
- Do not commit local packet files unless the user explicitly wants them tracked.