| name | managing-pullrequest-com |
| description | Use when working with Pullrequest Com — pullRequest professional code review
service management including reviewer pool configuration, review SLAs, quality
standards, and integration with GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket. Use when managing
PullRequest.com professional review workflows, reviewer expertise matching,
and review quality tracking.
|
| connection_type | pullrequest |
| preload | false |
Managing PullRequest.com
Overview
Manage PullRequest.com professional code review service, including reviewer pool configuration, SLA management, review quality standards, and integration with source code hosting platforms.
Key Capabilities
- Configure professional reviewer assignments by technology and domain
- Set review SLAs and turnaround time expectations
- Define review quality standards and checklists
- Integrate with GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket for seamless PR flow
- Track review quality metrics and reviewer performance
- Manage reviewer expertise matching for specialized codebases
Workflow
1 — Service Configuration
SERVICE SETUP
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Repository connections:
- GitHub: org/repo-1, org/repo-2
- GitLab: group/project-1
[ ] Review scope:
- All PRs: YES / NO
- PRs with specific labels: ___
- PRs targeting specific branches: ___
[ ] Technology stack: ___
[ ] Review turnaround SLA: ___ hours
2 — Review Standards
QUALITY STANDARDS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Review focus areas:
[ ] Correctness and logic
[ ] Security vulnerabilities
[ ] Performance implications
[ ] Code style and maintainability
[ ] Test coverage adequacy
[ ] Documentation completeness
[ ] Severity levels for findings:
- Critical: must fix before merge
- Suggestion: recommended improvement
- Nitpick: optional style preference
[ ] Custom review checklist: ___
3 — Reviewer Matching
EXPERTISE MATCHING
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Match reviewers by:
- Language expertise: ___
- Framework knowledge: ___
- Domain experience: ___
[ ] Preferred reviewers: ___
[ ] Reviewer consistency (same reviewer for related PRs): YES / NO
Common Operations
Track Review Status
Monitor pending, in-progress, and completed reviews across repositories.
Review Quality Audit
Analyze review thoroughness, finding accuracy, and false positive rates.
SLA Monitoring
Track review turnaround times against configured SLAs.
Troubleshooting
| Issue | Cause | Fix |
|---|
| PR not picked up | Label/branch filter mismatch | Check repository filter configuration |
| Review delayed | SLA breach | Escalate or adjust reviewer pool availability |
| Low quality feedback | Expertise mismatch | Update technology stack and matching preferences |
| Integration error | Webhook misconfigured | Verify webhook URL and authentication token |
Output Format
Present results as a structured report:
Managing Pullrequest Com Report
═══════════════════════════════
Resources discovered: [count]
Resource Status Key Metric Issues
──────────────────────────────────────────────
[name] [ok/warn] [value] [findings]
Summary: [total] resources | [ok] healthy | [warn] warnings | [crit] critical
Action Items: [list of prioritized findings]
Target ≤50 lines of output. Use tables for multi-resource comparisons.
Anti-Hallucination Rules
- NEVER assume resource names — always discover via CLI/API in Phase 1 before referencing in Phase 2.
- NEVER fabricate metric names or dimensions — verify against the service documentation or
--help output.
- NEVER mix CLI commands between service versions — confirm which version/API you are targeting.
- ALWAYS use the discovery → verify → analyze chain — every resource referenced must have been discovered first.
- ALWAYS handle empty results gracefully — an empty response is valid data, not an error to retry.
Counter-Rationalizations
| Shortcut | Counter | Why |
|---|
| "I'll skip discovery and check known resources" | Always run Phase 1 discovery first | Resource names change, new resources appear — assumed names cause errors |
| "The user only asked for a quick check" | Follow the full discovery → analysis flow | Quick checks miss critical issues; structured analysis catches silent failures |
| "Default configuration is probably fine" | Audit configuration explicitly | Defaults often leave logging, security, and optimization features disabled |
| "Metrics aren't needed for this" | Always check relevant metrics when available | API/CLI responses show current state; metrics reveal trends and intermittent issues |
| "I don't have access to that" | Try the command and report the actual error | Assumed permission failures prevent useful investigation; actual errors are informative |
