review-pr

# 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: ```bash 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} ```