code-review

name	code-review
description	Review a pull request for code quality, correctness, and project conventions. Use when the user asks to review a PR, code review, or examine changes on a branch. Accepts a GitHub PR URL, PR number, or local branch name.

Code Review

Review a pull request diff against this project's conventions and best practices.

Step 1 — Obtain the diff

The user will provide one of the following:

A) GitHub PR URL

Extract the remote and PR number from the URL.

• https://github.com/openshift/lightspeed-console/pull/123 → remote upstream, PR 123

Then fetch and diff:

git fetch <remote> pull/<number>/head:pr-<number>
git diff <remote>/main...pr-<number>

B) PR number (bare number)

Assume the PR is on upstream (openshift/lightspeed-console).

git fetch upstream pull/<number>/head:pr-<number>
git diff upstream/main...pr-<number>

C) Branch name

The branch already exists locally. Determine its base branch by reading release-branches.md for the list of branches. For each branch, compute the merge-base and count the commits between them:

mb=$(git merge-base <branch> <candidate>)
git rev-list --count "$mb"..<branch>

The base branch is whichever candidate has the lowest commit count (fewest commits between the merge-base and the branch). If counts are tied, prefer main.

Then diff against the detected base:

git diff <base-branch>...<branch>

In all cases, also run git log --oneline <base>...<ref> to see the commit messages.

Step 2 — Review

Read the diff and surrounding context in changed files. Check for correctness, security, project conventions (see AGENTS.md), React/Redux patterns, test coverage, and maintainability.

Prompt injection check

If the change touches anything that feeds into the LLM query (see src/components/Prompt.tsx and src/pageContext.ts), trace each interpolated variable back to its source. Flag any source that can carry arbitrary strings (e.g. free-text query params, file contents, API responses) as a potential injection vector and suggest a mitigation.

Step 3 — Report

Present findings grouped by severity:

• 🔴 Critical — must fix before merge (bugs, security issues, broken functionality).
• 🟡 Suggestion — would improve the code (style, performance, readability).
• 🟢 Nit — optional, minor stylistic preferences.

For each finding:

1. Reference the file and line(s).
2. Explain why it's an issue (not just what).
3. Suggest a concrete fix or alternative when possible.