| name | review-pr |
| description | Holistic GitHub PR review — code diff, PR description, existing review comments, and linked issues. Used by /kon:review-pr (Mio). Read-only; no gh pr merge or code edits. |
Review PR (holistic)
Owner: 📝 Mio (review-pr mode)
Consumers: /kon:review-pr
Core principles (always): follow skills/core-principles — first principles (don't hide the issue); simplest, most concise correct solution.
Scope
Review the whole PR package, not just the diff:
| Input | Review |
|---|
| Code diff | Logic, correctness, edge cases (subset of strict-review — see below) |
| PR title & body | Accuracy vs diff, missing test plan, misleading claims |
| Existing PR review comments | What reviewers asked for; what's addressed vs still open |
| Linked GitHub issue(s) | Requirements from issue body/comments; whether PR satisfies them |
Ask if PR number/URL is missing when user clearly means an open GitHub PR — follow skills/ask-dont-guess.
Orchestrator: gather context (before spawning Mio)
GitHub PR (preferred when user gives number or URL)
gh pr view <N> --json title,body,author,comments,reviews,reviewDecision,files,closingIssuesReferences
gh pr diff <N>
Parse Fixes #123 / Closes #456 / Relates to org/repo#789 from body if not in closingIssuesReferences. For each linked issue:
gh issue view <N> --json title,body,state,labels,comments
Include all review comments and inline review threads in the prompt (truncate only with a note listing omitted IDs).
Local only (no PR number)
git diff HEAD
git diff --cached
gh pr view --json title,body,comments,reviews,files,closingIssuesReferences 2>/dev/null || true
If gh pr view succeeds for the current branch, treat it like a GitHub PR and include body + comments + linked issues.
Pass gathered text to Mio as PR_CONTEXT in the task prompt. Set MODE: review-pr.
Code review bar
Apply the 7-item golden checklist from skills/strict-review to the diff only — mark [x]/[ ] under ## Code review. Default verdict starts BLOCKED until evidence supports otherwise.
PR description and linked-issue fit are separate sections — a perfect diff with a wrong/missing test plan in the body is still NEEDS_CHANGES.
Required output sections
## Loaded memory entries
...
## Verdict
APPROVED | NEEDS_CHANGES | BLOCKED
## PR overview
<title, author, linked issue refs, 1–2 sentence intent>
## Code review
<checklist + must-fix for code; cite file:line>
## PR description review
<Does body match diff? Test plan adequate? Claims supported?>
## Existing review comments
<Bullet per thread: reviewer, ask, addressed? yes/no/partial + evidence>
## Linked issues
<Per issue: requirement summary, satisfied? gaps?>
## Must-fix
<numbered, or "(none)" if APPROVED>
## Suggested updates
<Optional improved title/body snippets — only if current ones are weak>
Hard rules
- Read-only — no code edits, no
gh pr merge, no git push
- No invented CI results — cite command output if claiming tests pass
- Consider every review comment — do not ignore bot or human threads; say if N/A to current diff
