| name | pr-review |
| description | Review PyTorch pull requests for code quality, test coverage, security, and backward compatibility. Use when reviewing PRs, when asked to review code changes, or when the user mentions "review PR", "code review", or "check this PR". |
PyTorch PR Review Skill
Review PyTorch pull requests focusing on what CI cannot check: code quality, test coverage adequacy, security vulnerabilities, and backward compatibility.
Usage Modes
No Argument
If the user invokes /pr-review with no arguments, do not perform a review. Instead, ask the user what they would like to review:
What would you like me to review?
- A PR number or URL (e.g.,
/pr-review 12345)
- A local branch (e.g.,
/pr-review branch)
Local CLI Mode
The user provides a PR number or URL:
/pr-review 12345
/pr-review https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/12345
For a detailed review with line-by-line specific comments:
/pr-review 12345 detailed
Use gh CLI to fetch PR data:
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json title,body,author,baseRefName,headRefName,files,additions,deletions,commits
gh pr diff <PR_NUMBER>
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json comments,reviews
Local Branch Mode
Review changes in the current branch that are not in main:
/pr-review branch
/pr-review branch detailed
Use git commands to get branch changes:
git branch --show-current
git diff --name-only main...HEAD
git diff main...HEAD
git log main..HEAD --oneline
git diff --stat main...HEAD
For local branch reviews:
- The "Summary" should describe what the branch changes accomplish based on commit messages and diff
- Use the current branch name in the review header instead of a PR number
- All other review criteria apply the same as PR reviews
GitHub Actions Mode
When invoked via @claude /pr-review on a GitHub PR, the action pre-fetches PR
metadata and injects it into the prompt. Detect this mode by the presence of
<formatted_context>, <pr_or_issue_body>, and <comments> tags in the prompt.
The prompt already contains:
- PR metadata (title, author, branch names, additions/deletions, file count)
- PR body/description
- All comments and review comments (with file/line references)
- List of changed files with paths and change types
Use git commands to get the diff and commit history. The base branch name is in the
prompt context (look for PR Branch: <head> -> <base> or the baseBranch field).
git diff origin/<baseBranch>...HEAD
git diff --stat origin/<baseBranch>...HEAD
git log origin/<baseBranch>..HEAD --oneline
git fetch origin <baseBranch> --depth=1
Do NOT use gh CLI commands in this mode -- only git commands are available.
All PR metadata, comments, and reviews are already in the prompt context;
only the diff and commit log need to be fetched via git.
Review Philosophy
A single line of code can have deep cross-cutting implications: a missing device guard causes silent data corruption on multi-GPU, a missing Composite dispatch key breaks every out-of-tree backend, a manual dtype check instead of TensorIterator silently skips type promotion. Treat every line as potentially load-bearing.
- Investigate, don't guess — When uncertain whether a checklist item applies, spawn a sub-agent to read the relevant code. A reviewer who guesses wrong provides negative value.
- Review the design, not just the implementation — A PR can have perfectly correct implementation of a bad design. Question side-channel communication, on/off private flags, and demand concrete interface documentation for new contracts between components.
- Focus on what CI cannot check — Don't comment on formatting, linting, type errors, or CI failures. Focus on design quality, interface correctness, thread safety, BC implications, test adequacy, and pattern adherence.
- Everything is a must-fix — There are no "nits." If it's worth mentioning, it's worth fixing. Every inconsistency degrades the codebase over time.
- Be specific and actionable — Reference file paths and line numbers. Name the function/class/file the author should use.
- Match the immediate context — Read how similar features are already implemented in the same file. Pattern mismatches within a file are always wrong.
- Assume competence — The author knows PyTorch; explain only non-obvious context.
- No repetition — Each observation appears in exactly one section of the review output.
Using sub-agents
The review checklist is large. You cannot hold the full context of every infrastructure system in your head. Spawn sub-agents to investigate whether checklist items apply: read surrounding code, infrastructure the PR should be using, or tests that should exist. Spawn them in parallel for independent areas. A typical medium PR should spawn 3-8 sub-agents.
Review Workflow
Step 1: Understand Context
Before reviewing, build understanding of what the PR touches and why:
- Identify the purpose of the change from title/description/issue
- Group changes by type (new code, tests, config, docs)
- Note the scope of changes (files affected, lines changed)
- Spawn sub-agents to read the unchanged code surrounding each significantly changed file to understand existing patterns and infrastructure
Step 2: Deep Review
Go through every changed line in the diff and evaluate it against the review checklist in review-checklist.md.
Step 3: Check Backward Compatibility
Evaluate BC implications per bc-guidelines.md. For non-trivial BC questions, spawn a sub-agent to search for existing callers of the modified API.
Step 4: Formulate Review
Structure your review with actionable feedback organized by category. Every finding should be traceable to a specific line in the diff.
Output Format
Structure your review as follows. Omit sections where you have no findings — don't write "No concerns" for every empty section. Only include sections with actual observations.
## PR Review: #<number>
<!-- Or for local branch reviews: -->
## Branch Review: <branch-name> (vs main)
### Summary
Brief overall assessment of the changes (1-2 sentences).
### Code Quality
[Issues and suggestions]
### Infrastructure
[Flag any checklist items from the PyTorch Infrastructure section that apply.
Reference the specific infrastructure the PR should be using.]
### Testing
[Testing adequacy findings — missing OpInfo usage, non-device-generic tests, etc.]
### API Design
[Flag new patterns, internal-access flags, or broader implications if any.]
### Security
[Issues if any]
### Thread Safety
[Threading concerns if any]
### Backward Compatibility
[BC concerns if any]
### Performance
[Performance concerns if any]
### Recommendation
**Approve** / **Request Changes** / **Needs Discussion**
[Brief justification for recommendation]
Specific Comments (Detailed Review Only)
Only include this section if the user requests a "detailed" or "in depth" review.
Do not repeat observations already made in other sections. This section is for additional file-specific feedback that doesn't fit into the categorized sections above.
When requested, add file-specific feedback with line references:
### Specific Comments
- `src/module.py:42` - Consider extracting this logic into a named function for clarity
- `test/test_feature.py:100-105` - Missing test for error case when input is None
- `torch/nn/modules/linear.py:78` - This allocation could be moved outside the loop
Files to Reference
When reviewing, consult these project files for context — read them rather than relying on memory, as they change frequently:
CLAUDE.md - Coding style philosophy and testing patternsCONTRIBUTING.md - PR requirements and review processtorch/testing/_internal/common_utils.py - Test patterns and utilitiestorch/testing/_internal/opinfo/core.py - OpInfo test frameworkaten/src/ATen/native/native_functions.yaml - Operator declarations (for checking tags, dispatch keys, structured kernels)tools/autograd/derivatives.yaml - Backward formulas (for checking if an op should register here)aten/src/ATen/native/tags.yaml - Operator semantic tags
