pr-review

name	pr-review
description	Comprehensive PR code review skill for git repositories. Use when reviewing a GitHub/GitLab PR by providing a PR link. Analyzes changes against merge base, explains what the PR does, provides review guidelines, identifies issues sorted by severity, evaluates test coverage, and raises uncertain questions. REQUIRES Must be in a git repository with gh CLI available.

PR Review Skill

Review a Pull Request comprehensively by analyzing the diff against the upstream merge base.

Prerequisites Check (MUST verify first)

Before proceeding, verify:

# 1. Check if in a git repository
git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree

# 2. Check if gh CLI is available and authenticated
gh auth status

If either check fails, STOP and inform the user:

• Not in git repo → "This skill requires a git repository. Please navigate to a git project."
• gh not authenticated → "Please run gh auth login first."

Input

The user provides a PR link in one of these formats:

• Full URL: https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123
• Short form (if in repo): #123 or 123

Workflow

Step 1: Extract PR Information

# Get comprehensive PR metadata
gh pr view <PR_URL> --json number,title,body,state,author,baseRefName,baseRefOid,headRefName,headRefOid,additions,deletions,changedFiles,files,commits,reviewDecision,reviews,labels,milestone,createdAt,updatedAt

# Get the diff
gh pr diff <PR_URL>

# Get list of changed files
gh pr diff <PR_URL> --name-only

# Get detailed file changes with additions/deletions
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/files

Step 2: Analyze the Merge Base

# Get base and head commits
BASE_REF=$(gh pr view <PR_URL> --json baseRefOid -q .baseRefOid)
HEAD_REF=$(gh pr view <PR_URL> --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid)

# Find merge base (requires local clone)
git fetch origin $BASE_REF $HEAD_REF 2>/dev/null || true
git merge-base $BASE_REF $HEAD_REF 2>/dev/null || echo $BASE_REF

Step 3: Deep Code Analysis

For each changed file, analyze:

1. Read the full diff - Understand every change
2. Read surrounding context - Use gh api or local files to understand the code being modified
3. Identify patterns - What coding patterns does this codebase use?
4. Check for tests - Are there corresponding test changes?

Output Format (MANDATORY)

Your review MUST include ALL of the following sections in this exact order:

---

📋 PR Summary

Title: [PR Title] Author: [Author] Branch: [head] → [base] Files Changed: [N] | Additions: +[N] | Deletions: -[N]

What This PR Does

[2-5 sentences explaining the purpose and scope of this PR. Be specific about what functionality is added/changed/removed.]

Key Changes

• [Bullet point 1: specific change]
• [Bullet point 2: specific change]
• [...]

---

📖 Review Guidelines

Based on the type of changes in this PR, reviewers should focus on:

Area	Priority	What to Check
[Area 1]	🔴 High	[Specific guidance]
[Area 2]	🟡 Medium	[Specific guidance]
[Area 3]	🟢 Low	[Specific guidance]

---

🚨 Issues Found

Issues are sorted by severity (Critical → High → Medium → Low → Nitpick).

🔴 Critical (Must Fix)

[Issues that will cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, or data loss]

[Issue Title]

• File: path/to/file.ts:L123
• Problem: [Clear description]
• Impact: [What will go wrong]
• Suggestion: [How to fix]

🟠 High (Should Fix)

[Issues that may cause problems or violate important patterns]

🟡 Medium (Consider Fixing)

[Code quality issues, minor bugs, or pattern violations]

🟢 Low (Nice to Have)

[Style issues, minor improvements]

💭 Nitpicks

[Purely stylistic suggestions, optional improvements]

---

🧪 Test Coverage Analysis

Test Changes in This PR

Test File	Type	Coverage
[file]	[unit/integration/e2e]	[what it tests]

Coverage Assessment

• New code tested: [Yes/No/Partial] - [explanation]
• Edge cases covered: [Yes/No/Partial] - [explanation]
• Regression tests: [Yes/No/N/A] - [explanation]

Recommended Additional Tests

1. [Specific test case that should be added]
2. [Another test case]

---

❓ Questions & Uncertainties

Things I'm not certain about and would like clarification on:

1. [Question about design decision]

   • Context: [Why I'm asking]
   • My assumption: [What I think the answer might be]

2. [Question about edge case]

   • Context: [Why this matters]
   • Potential issue: [What could go wrong]

---

✅ Review Verdict

Aspect	Status	Notes
Code Quality	🟢/🟡/🔴	[Brief note]
Security	🟢/🟡/🔴	[Brief note]
Performance	🟢/🟡/🔴	[Brief note]
Test Coverage	🟢/🟡/🔴	[Brief note]
Documentation	🟢/🟡/🔴	[Brief note]

Overall: [APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / NEEDS DISCUSSION]

---

Review Checklist (Internal - Use for Analysis)

Code Quality

• No code duplication
• Functions are focused and small
• Variable/function names are clear
• No dead code or commented-out code
• Error handling is appropriate
• No hardcoded values that should be configurable

Security

• No secrets or credentials in code
• Input validation present where needed
• No SQL injection vulnerabilities
• No XSS vulnerabilities
• Authentication/authorization checks in place
• Sensitive data properly handled

Performance

• No N+1 query patterns
• No unnecessary re-renders (React)
• No memory leaks
• Efficient algorithms used
• No blocking operations in async contexts

Breaking Changes

• API contracts preserved (or documented if changed)
• Database migrations are reversible
• Feature flags for risky changes
• Backward compatibility maintained

Documentation

• Public APIs documented
• Complex logic has comments
• README updated if needed
• CHANGELOG entry if user-facing

Important Notes

1. Be Specific: Always reference exact file paths and line numbers
2. Be Constructive: Suggest fixes, don't just point out problems
3. Prioritize: Critical issues first, nitpicks last
4. Context Matters: Consider the codebase's existing patterns
5. Ask Questions: When uncertain, ask rather than assume