| name | review-pr |
| argument-hint | PR number, URL, or omit to detect current branch |
| description | Review a pull request against the shared Review Protocol (correctness,
regression, stability, contract, architecture, security).
Use when the user asks to "review PR", "check PR", "PR review",
or wants an evidence-grounded review of a pull request before merge.
|
Pull Request Quality Gate Review
Target: $ARGUMENTS (PR number, GitHub URL, or empty for current branch)
Default Flow Position
- Step:
completion gate (final review at end of work)
- Routes after:
/sync-guidelines if drift detected
- Recursion guard: do not invoke
/review-pr recursively, do not invoke /plan-feature from inside
Procedure Overview
- Resolve PR; collect diff + intent (PR body / issue / acceptance criteria) and load the
Review Protocol + its checklists (Phase 0)
- Review changed files against the protocol dimensions —
CORR / REG / STAB / CONTRACT / ARCH / SEC / GOV (Phase 1)
- Determine
Drift Candidates and whether Sync Required is true or false (Phase 2)
- Report using the protocol output contract —
Findings (open) + Coverage (OK/SKIP) +
Verdict (Phase 3)
- Post to GitHub per protocol §5 only after user confirmation (Phase 4)
Read docs/ai/shared/skills/review-pr.md for detailed steps, and
docs/ai/shared/review-protocol.md for the shared
dimensions, finding basis, output contract, and posting rules.
For cross-tool review prompts, use the shared procedure's Cross-Tool Review Prompt Template
section; do not duplicate the template here.
Claude-Specific: Finding Basis
Every finding obeys the protocol's Finding Basis rule:
ARCH / SEC / GOV findings must cite a shared rule source (you may navigate via
.claude/rules/architecture-conventions.md, but the citation is the shared checklist / AGENTS.md);
CORR / REG / STAB / CONTRACT findings must cite diff / contract / test / runtime
evidence. A concern with no basis is a Question, not a finding.
