Using conventional comments also forces me to rethink if my comment is really blocking or is just an optional suggestion and I can adjust the tone accordingly.

+1 for use of Conventional Comments. It's a simple lift for a noticeable improvement in clarity, and guidance on what to do next.

Offtopic but related:

Conventional commits: https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/

I use conventional comments everyday. It just helps me communicate clearly and concisely.

praise: I came here to suggest conventional comments as well!

thought: reading this style of sentence would get annoying quickly.

I don't get the point of these TBH. The usefulness of conventional commits is that they can be easily aggregated to get an idea of the types of changes that were made.

Code review comments are purely meant for human communication, so requiring a specific structure is both annoying to write and to read.

I tend to use one, at most two prefixes. "Nit", and rarely "blocker". Though I'd rather specify if something is a blocker once I make my case about what needs to be changed.

Every other comment is assumed to be a suggestion, and depending or not I block the PR by "requesting changes", it's up to the author to either accept my suggestion or provide reasons not to.

Any other strict guideline about how to write prose is silly to me. Especially the decorations section. C'mon now.