project-conventions-checker

Provide the diff, changed file list, or a summary of the change, and the review workflow classifies it, loads the relevant rule references, and returns a checklist covering architecture, naming, testing, and dependencies with Pass or Needs changes verdicts.

Use the new contributor mode, which starts with a supportive summary, prioritizes violations of core rules first, cites the specific rule each issue breaks, and shows a small concrete example of the correct approach with the smallest possible fix.

Reviews work best with reference files covering project rules, architecture patterns, naming and structure, UI/UX guidelines, testing guidelines, and dependency policy. When these are missing, the workflow falls back to docs like code-standards.md and codebase-summary.md.

Yes, but it needs at minimum a short summary of the change plus key files, folders, or diff snippets. If those artifacts are missing entirely, the workflow explicitly asks you to provide them before proceeding.

It only enforces documented project-specific conventions and does not perform generic security audits, performance profiling, or reviews of unrelated repositories. Rule quality depends on keeping the reference files accurate and under 150 lines each.