with one click
review-pr
Review a pull request or branch diff with structured quality analysis
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Menu
Review a pull request or branch diff with structured quality analysis
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Guided git commit workflow — review changes, draft message, stage, commit
Manage context pressure during large codebase work without losing critical state.
Create a pull request with structured summary and test plan
Interactive debugging — reproduce, isolate, trace, fix
Explore a codebase or directory to understand its structure and purpose
Implement a requested code change end-to-end with scoped edits and verification.
| name | review-pr |
| description | Review a pull request or branch diff with structured quality analysis |
| when_to_use | When reviewing code changes, pull requests, or branch diffs |
| required_tools | ["bash","symbol_search"] |
| tags | ["review","quality"] |
| activation | {"input_patterns":["(?i)(review.*(pr|pull|merge|branch|diff)|pr.*review|代码审查)"]} |
${ARGS}
Identify the changes: git diff against the base branch. Understand size and nature. Read the PR description or commit messages for stated intent. If multiple commits, review ALL of them — the full scope, not just the latest.
For each changed file: does the change match stated intent? Are there unrelated modifications mixed in? Is the change complete, or are TODO/FIXME markers left behind?
Probe correctness: logic errors, off-by-one, null/undefined handling, edge cases without test coverage, concurrency issues if applicable. Check security: input validation, injection vectors, credential exposure.
Assess quality: naming clarity, abstraction level, separation of concerns. Are failures surfaced or swallowed? Unnecessary allocations, N+1 queries, missing indexes? Does the change follow existing codebase conventions?
Per finding: File:Line | Severity (critical / warning / nit) | Issue | Suggestion
Summary verdict: approve / request changes / block. State what was done well, not only what needs work.