I mean, have you tried to ask it not to do those checks? It's similar to the OP about no defensive coding. In general, CC works better when you can tell it WHAT TO DO as opposed what NOT to do, but sometimes there is no way around it. What kind of checks it's adding? Like asserting that columns exist and stuff?

what danger?

fair point. I think they should ALSO be in your CLAUDE.md. Doing Claude reviews with the exact same instructions still makes sense because the PR itself is often a co-production between AI and the human who gives the instructions (and in the coding process the agent might be more sycophantic toward the user's ideas). Additionally, when writing code, Claude is more focused on writing code that works and puts a lot of your repo into context, while during reviewing it pays more attention to these guidelines

Weirdly, CC still adds stupid comments to guide its next steps despite having that instruction in CLAUDE.md AFAIK.

yeah I guess figuring out how AI and your team can optimally work together is not that straightforward.. probably every engineering team is trying to figure that out atm :D but if we already let AI write reviews, they should at least be as good as they can

Some of the rules are impossible to code generally enough, right? Like, "no defensive coding" - I can't imagine what kind of AST shenaningas you would have to do without basically banning `if`.

that's another option of course. But it's definitely easier to setup all these checks and linter tests with a skill file vs git hooks and actions