code-review

name

code-review

description

Perform a thorough, precise code review of a GitHub pull request, in the agent thread, using the `gh` CLI. Give it a PR number (preferred) or a branch name - it fetches the PR and diff with `gh`, runs an explicit review loop, decides PASS or CHANGES REQUESTED, and returns a prioritized list of required fixes. Optionally takes a short description of the change to focus the review. Use when asked to review a PR, a branch's PR, or "the diff" before merging. Repo-agnostic.

code-review

A code-review skill that reviews a GitHub pull request in this agent thread using the gh CLI. You give it a PR number (or a branch, from which it finds the open PR); it pulls the PR metadata and diff with gh, then produces a verdict and a fix list.

This skill is intentionally generic and portable: it makes no assumptions about the language, framework, or this specific repo. When a repo does ship its own conventions (linters, quality gates, contribution rules), fold those in - here they live in the [[code-quality]] and [[contributing]] skills.

Inputs

Parameter	Required	Meaning
pr	preferred	The pull-request number to review. When given, use it directly.
branch	alternative	A branch name; find the open PR opened from this branch (see below). Use only when no pr number is supplied.
description	no	A short summary of intent: what the change is meant to do, linked issue, risk areas to focus on. Improves precision - use it if given.

Take these from the prompt that invoked this skill - use exactly the PR number, branch, and description you were given. Provide at least one of pr or branch. Prefer pr when both are present. If neither is supplied, ask before starting - never guess which PR to review.

Prerequisite: gh must be installed and authenticated (gh auth status). If it is not, stop and tell the caller to authenticate rather than falling back to a local diff.

Resolve the PR

If given a branch instead of a PR number, find the open PR opened from it:

gh pr list --head <branch> --state open \
  --json number,title,headRefName,baseRefName,url

• Exactly one PR → use its number.
• No open PR → stop and report that; there is nothing to review.
• Multiple PRs → list them (number, title, base) and ask which one; do not pick arbitrarily.

Establish the diff

Pull the PR's metadata and its diff with gh (this is the review surface - the PR's own base…head diff, so unrelated commits already on the base branch are excluded):

gh pr view <pr> --json number,title,body,baseRefName,headRefName,state,url,files
gh pr diff <pr>          # the full unified diff under review
gh pr diff <pr> --name-only   # scope overview: changed files

Read the full diff, and open the surrounding code of any non-trivial hunk with the file tools - a diff hunk alone hides callers, invariants, and the rest of the function. Never review from the file list alone. If the PR branch is checked out locally you may also read whole files directly; the gh pr diff output is the authoritative review surface.

The review loop

Run this loop deliberately. Do not shortcut to a verdict.

1. Understand intent. From the description, the PR title/body, commit messages, and diff, state in one or two sentences what this change is trying to do. If intent is unclear and neither the PR body nor a description explains it, note it - unclear intent is itself a review finding.

2. Map the blast radius. List the files/functions touched and what depends on them. For each non-trivial hunk, read enough surrounding code to judge it in context (callers, error paths, the rest of the function, tests that cover it).

3. Review each hunk against the checklist below. For every concern, record: the file:line, what's wrong, why it matters, and the concrete fix. Distinguish facts you verified in the code from suspicions you could not confirm.

4. Look for what's missing, not only what's present. Absent tests, unhandled errors, an updated caller that a signature change requires, docs/generated files that should have changed alongside the code, a config/flag left unset.

5. Self-check before verdict. Re-read your findings and drop or downgrade anything you cannot point to a concrete failure case for. A precise review is one where every blocking finding has a plausible, statable way it goes wrong. Avoid style nitpicks unless a repo linter would actually reject them.

6. Decide and report (next section).

Iterate steps 2-4 until you have covered every changed file. If the diff is large, work file-by-file and keep a running findings list so nothing is dropped.

Review checklist

Weigh these; not all apply to every change.

• Correctness - logic errors, off-by-one, wrong operators/conditions, incorrect assumptions, broken control flow, misuse of APIs.
• Edge cases - nil/null/empty, zero, negative, boundary values, overflow, empty collections, unexpected input, concurrency/ordering, partial failure.
• Error handling - errors swallowed, ignored, or wrapped without context; missing rollback/cleanup; panics/exceptions on reachable paths; resource leaks (files, handles, connections, goroutines/threads).
• Security - injection, unvalidated input, authz/authn gaps, secrets in code or logs, unsafe deserialization, path traversal, SSRF, missing least-privilege.
• Concurrency - data races, deadlocks, unsynchronized shared state, context/cancellation not honored.
• Contracts & compatibility - changed function/API signatures with un-updated callers, breaking changes to public interfaces, schema/serialization/back-compat breaks.
• Tests - are new/changed code paths covered? Do tests assert behavior (not just run)? Are failure paths tested?
• Readability & maintainability - naming, dead code, needless complexity, duplication that should be reused, missing or misleading comments where intent is non-obvious.
• Consistency - does the change match the surrounding code's idioms, patterns, and conventions? (Read neighbors to judge this.)
• Performance - obvious inefficiency on a hot path: N+1, unnecessary allocation/copy, repeated work that should be hoisted or cached. Don't speculate about micro-perf.
• Docs & generated artifacts - user-facing docs, changelogs, and any generated files the change should have regenerated.

Severity levels

Classify every finding:

• BLOCKER - must fix before merge: correctness bug, security hole, data loss, breaks callers/build/tests.
• MAJOR - should fix: likely bug under some inputs, missing error handling, missing test for meaningful new logic, meaningful maintainability problem.
• MINOR - nice to fix: readability, small consistency issues, weak naming.
• NIT - optional/style; never blocks on its own.

Verdict rule

• CHANGES REQUESTED if there is any BLOCKER or MAJOR finding.
• PASS if there are no BLOCKER/MAJOR findings (MINOR/NIT may remain, listed as non-blocking).

Be decisive - always emit exactly one verdict.

Output format

Report in the thread using this structure:

## Code review: PR #<pr> — <title> (<headRefName> → <baseRefName>)

**Verdict: PASS** | **CHANGES REQUESTED**

<one-paragraph summary: what the change does and the overall assessment>

### Required fixes (blocking)
1. [BLOCKER] <file>:<line> - <what's wrong>. Fix: <concrete change>.
2. [MAJOR]   <file>:<line> - <what's wrong>. Fix: <concrete change>.

### Non-blocking suggestions
- [MINOR] <file>:<line> - <suggestion>.
- [NIT]   <file>:<line> - <suggestion>.

### Notes / could not verify
- <anything you flagged but couldn't confirm, or assumptions made>

If the verdict is PASS, the "Required fixes (blocking)" section reads None. Every blocking item must be actionable: a reviewer should be able to apply the fix from the description alone.

Principles

• Precision over volume. A few real, well-explained findings beat a long list of guesses. Every blocking finding names a concrete way the code fails.
• Read the context, not just the diff. Confirm callers, invariants, and tests in the surrounding code before asserting a bug.
• Review the change, not the whole codebase. Pre-existing issues outside the diff are out of scope unless the change makes them materially worse.
• Be specific. Always cite file:line and give the fix, never just "this looks wrong".

Related skills

• [[code-quality]] - run the repo's actual linters/formatters/secret-scan; a clean review still needs the mechanical gate to pass.
• [[unit-test]] - verify the change's tests actually pass.
• [[contributing]] - the repo's pre-PR checklist the change must satisfy before merge.