| name | review-pr |
| description | Review pull requests with complexity-adaptive depth — spawning deep-dive agents for medium and complex PRs. Use this skill when the user says "review this PR", "review PR #123", "check this pull request", "give me a code review", or wants feedback on a PR before merging. Also use when the user says "/review-pr" or pastes a GitHub PR URL. Requires the GitHub CLI (gh).
|
Review Pull Request
Review pull requests with a depth that matches their complexity. Simple PRs get a direct review; complex PRs get parallel deep-dive agents analyzing security, performance, and architecture.
Arguments
The user should provide PR number(s) or URL(s). If none provided, ask for them.
Instructions
Step 1: Retrieve PR Details
Use the GitHub CLI to get the full picture:
gh pr view {pr_number} --json title,body,files,additions,deletions,commits,author,reviews,comments
gh pr diff {pr_number}
Step 2: Assess Complexity
Score the PR based on:
- Number of files changed
- Lines added/removed
- Number of commits
- Whether changes touch core/architectural files
Simple (direct review, no agents):
- 5 or fewer files AND 100 or fewer lines AND single author
Medium (1-2 deep-dive agents):
- 6-15 files, OR 100-500 lines, OR 2 contributors
Complex (up to 3 deep-dive agents):
- More than 15 files, OR more than 500 lines, OR more than 2 contributors, OR touches core architecture
Step 3: Analyze
For Simple PRs: review directly — read the diff, check for issues, provide feedback.
For Medium/Complex PRs: spawn deep-dive agents in parallel using the Agent tool with subagent_type: "deep-dive". Each agent gets a focused area:
- Agent 1 — Code Quality: conventions, patterns, maintainability, test coverage
- Agent 2 — Security: input validation, auth checks, injection risks, data exposure
- Agent 3 — Architecture (Complex only): design patterns, separation of concerns, performance implications, backwards compatibility
Each agent receives the PR diff and description and returns a structured review.
Step 4: Vision Alignment
Read the project's README.md and CLAUDE.md to understand the application's purpose. Assess whether the PR aligns with the project's intended direction. Flag significant deviations — not as a blocker, but as a consideration for the reviewer.
Step 5: Safety Assessment
Provide an overall assessment:
- Safe to merge: no significant issues found
- Merge with caution: minor issues that should be noted but aren't blocking
- Needs changes: issues that should be fixed before merging
Include a risk level (low/medium/high) with justification.
Step 6: Report
Structure the review as:
## PR Review: #{pr_number} — {title}
### Complexity: {Simple|Medium|Complex}
{Brief justification}
### Summary
{2-3 sentence overview of what the PR does}
### Issues Found
{Grouped by severity: high → medium → low}
- **{severity}**: {file:line} — {description}
### Improvements Suggested
{Optional improvements ranked by importance and implementation complexity}
### Vision Alignment
{Does this PR align with the project's direction?}
### Verdict: {Safe to merge | Merge with caution | Needs changes}
Risk level: {low|medium|high}
{Brief justification}
