| name | pr-review |
| description | Review a pull request and rate it /10 on bugs, security, improvements, technical quality, and consistency with adjacent code. |
PR Review Skill
Context Gathering
- Determine the main branch, then diff against it:
MAIN=$(git remote show origin | sed -n '/HEAD branch/s/.*: //p')git fetch origin "$MAIN"git --no-pager diff "origin/$MAIN...HEAD"
- Read adjacent code for each modified file.
- Check for new/modified tests related to changes.
- If dependency files changed (
pyproject.toml, uv.lock, requirements.txt), use the validate_cves tool.
Evaluation Criteria
Hints below are additional focus areas — use your own judgment to evaluate thoroughly.
- Bugs (weight: critical)
- Security (weight: critical)
- Tests & Reliability (weight: high)
- Improvements (weight: medium) — simpler libraries, unnecessary complexity, performance.
- Technical Quality (weight: medium) — AHA rule: only extract when used >3 times.
- Consistency (weight: low) — match patterns/naming/style of surrounding code.
Severity Levels
- 🔴 Blocker: Must fix before merge.
- 🟠 Important: Should fix.
- 🟡 Minor: Nice to fix.
Scoring Rules
- Any 🔴 → Overall capped at 5/10.
- Any 🟠 → Overall capped at 7/10.
- Bugs & Security count 2x in weighted average.
Output Format
## PR Review — <PR title>
| Criteria | Status | Comments |
|--------------------|--------|----------|
| Bugs | 🟢/🟡/🟠/🔴 | |
| Security | 🟢/🟡/🟠/🔴 | |
| Tests & Reliability| 🟢/🟡/🟠/🔴 | |
| Improvements | 🟢/🟡/🟠/🔴 | |
| Technical Quality | 🟢/🟡/🟠/🔴 | |
| Consistency | 🟢/🟡/🟠/🔴 | |
**Overall: X/10**
### 🔴 Blockers
### 🟠 Important
### 🟡 Minor
### 👍 What's Done Well
### Suggestions
Guidelines
- Reference specific lines/files. Be actionable. Praise what's good.
- Don't nitpick formatting if a linter is configured.
- When unsure about a pattern, check similar code in the repo first.
