pr-review

name	pr-review
description	Use when reviewing a pull request or your current branch before merging. Triggers: PR URL (GitHub or Azure DevOps), 'review my branch', 'review this PR', local branch review, pre-merge check. Auto-detects platform from URL or git remote.

PR Review

Single-pass structured review for GitHub and Azure DevOps PRs, or local branch diffs.

Entry Modes

URL provided — parse to detect platform, fetch PR:

• github.com/.../pull/N → gh pr view N --json title,body,commits,files
• dev.azure.com/.../pullrequest/N → az repos pr show --id N

No URL (local branch) — auto-detect from remote:

REMOTE=$(git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null)
# github.com → gh
# dev.azure.com or visualstudio.com → az
# neither → pure git diff

Check for existing PR on current branch:

• GitHub: gh pr view --json number,title,body 2>/dev/null
• ADO: az repos pr list --source-branch "$(git branch --show-current)"

Context Gathering

Collect ALL of these before starting the review:

# 1. Base branch
BASE=$(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's@refs/remotes/origin/@@' || echo "main")

# 2. Diff and stats
git diff --stat "$BASE"...HEAD
git diff "$BASE"...HEAD

# 3. Commit log
git log "$BASE"..HEAD --oneline

# 4. PR description (if PR exists)
# gh pr view --json body  OR  az repos pr show --id N

# 5. CLAUDE.md files in the repo
# find . -name "CLAUDE.md" -not -path "./.git/*"

Read changed files in full (not just the diff) to understand surrounding context.

Review Checklist

One thorough pass. For each item, cite file:line references.

Area	Check
PR alignment	Changes match PR description / commit messages? Scope creep?
Code quality	Separation of concerns, error handling, DRY, edge cases
Architecture	Sound design, integrates cleanly, no unnecessary coupling
Security	Injection, secrets in code, auth/authz, OWASP top 10
Testing	Tests present, cover real behavior, edge cases, no mock abuse
Production readiness	Migrations, backward compat, no debug code, no TODOs
CLAUDE.md compliance	Project conventions, commit format, style rules

Output Format

## PR Review: <title or branch name>
Platform: GitHub | Azure DevOps | Local only
Base: <base> ← <branch> (N commits, M files changed)

### Strengths
[Specific things done well with file:line references]

### Issues

#### Critical (Must Fix)
[Bugs, security issues, data loss, broken functionality]

#### Important (Should Fix)
[Architecture problems, missing error handling, test gaps]

#### Minor (Nice to Have)
[Style, optimization, documentation]

For each issue:
- **file:line** — what's wrong — why it matters — how to fix

### Assessment
**Ready to merge?** [Yes | No | With fixes]
**Reasoning:** 1-2 sentence technical verdict

Omit empty severity sections. If no issues found at a severity level, skip it.

Severity Calibration

• Critical — would cause an incident, data loss, or security vulnerability in production
• Important — won't break prod immediately but will cause pain (missing validation, poor error handling, test gaps that mask regressions)
• Minor — style, naming, micro-optimizations; author can ignore

When in doubt, go one level lower. Not everything is Critical.

Red Flags

• Empty PR description with large diff → flag as Important
• New dependencies without justification → flag
• Secrets, tokens, or credentials in diff → flag as Critical
• Tests deleted without replacement → flag as Important
• Files > 500 lines changed without tests → flag

Platform Command Reference

GitHub (gh)

gh pr view N --json title,body,headRefName,baseRefName,commits,files,reviews
gh pr diff N
gh pr checks N

Azure DevOps (az)

az repos pr show --id N \
  --query "{title:title,description:description,
    sourceRefName:sourceRefName,
    targetRefName:targetRefName,status:status}"
az repos pr list --source-branch BRANCH \
  --status active \
  --query "[0].pullRequestId" -o tsv
az repos pr work-items list --id N
az repos pr policy list --id N

Local Only (no platform)

git diff main...HEAD
git log main..HEAD --oneline
git diff --stat main...HEAD