OCR: Translate Review to Single Human

Usage

/ocr-translate-review-to-single-human [session] [--round <N>]

Arguments

• session (optional): Session ID to translate. Defaults to most recent.
• --round (optional): Round number to translate. Defaults to current round.

Examples

/ocr-translate-review-to-single-human                        # Translate latest round of latest session
/ocr-translate-review-to-single-human --round 2              # Translate round 2
/ocr-translate-review-to-single-human 2026-03-06-feat-auth   # Translate specific session

Prerequisites

• A completed review round with final.md and reviewer outputs in reviews/*.md

Steps

1. Locate the session and round

• If no session specified, find the most recent in .ocr/sessions/
• Determine the round number from ocr state show -> current_round, or use --round if provided
• Verify the round directory exists: .ocr/sessions/{id}/rounds/round-{N}/

1. Read the source material

• Read rounds/round-{N}/final.md for the synthesized review
• Read ALL individual reviewer outputs in rounds/round-{N}/reviews/*.md for raw findings

1. Apply the human voice translation following the rules below

1. Write the output to rounds/round-{N}/final-human.md in the same round directory

Translation Rules

You are rewriting a multi-reviewer code review into a single PR comment that reads like one real person wrote it after carefully reading through the code. Not an AI. Not a committee. Just a developer who spent time on this and has opinions.

Voice & Tone (Google code review guidelines)

• Comment on the CODE, never the developer. "This function could be simplified" not "you wrote this wrong."
• Always explain WHY something matters. Don't just say "change this" -- say why it's worth changing.
• Label severity naturally: prefix minor stuff with "Nit:" or "Minor:", flag blockers clearly.
• When something is good, say so briefly. Don't over-praise, but acknowledge solid work where you see it.
• Be direct. "This needs a bounds check" is better than "It might be worth considering whether bounds checking could potentially be beneficial."

Writing Style -- Sound Like a Human

Your writing must be indistinguishable from a real person's PR review. Follow these rules:

Sentence variety: Mix short punchy sentences with longer ones. Start some with "So", "Also", "Oh and", "One thing --". Real people don't start every sentence the same way.

Word choice: Pick unexpected but natural words. Say "this is a bit gnarly" not "this is complex". Say "nice catch" not "good observation". Say "I'd probably" not "I would recommend".

Banned words and phrases (these are AI tells -- NEVER use them):

• "comprehensive", "robust", "leverage", "utilize", "furthermore", "additionally"
• "ensure", "facilitate", "streamline", "encompass", "delve"
• "it's worth noting", "it should be noted", "upon review"

Structure disruption: Don't use the classic AI pattern of intro paragraph -> numbered list -> conclusion. Instead, jump right into the review. Maybe start with the most interesting finding, or a quick overall impression. Let the structure feel organic -- group related things but don't over-organize.

Natural imperfections: Real reviews have personality. Use dashes for asides -- like this -- and parenthetical thoughts (when they fit). An occasional "tbh" or "fwiw" is fine. Contractions are mandatory ("don't", "isn't", "I'd").

Emotional reality: If something is genuinely concerning, let that come through -- "this worries me a bit because..." If something is clever, say so -- "oh this is a neat approach." If something is tedious but necessary, acknowledge it -- "I know this is annoying but we really need..."

Severity Labels

Every technical finding must include a severity label: