| name | change-review |
| description | Reviews local diffs or GitHub PRs/GitLab MRs for correctness, risk, tests, docs, and review readiness. Use when asked to review a pull request, merge request, branch, patch, or uncommitted change set before approval or handoff. |
Change Review
Review a proposed code change regardless of hosting vocabulary: GitHub calls it a PR, GitLab calls it an MR. Use the neutral term change in your reasoning and mention PR/MR only when referring to the platform object.
Hard rules
- Read first; do not modify files unless the user explicitly asks for fixes.
- Never approve blindly. Separate verified facts from assumptions.
- Prefer
gh for GitHub PRs and glab for GitLab MRs.
- Do not read or print secrets (
.env*, .secrets/, credentials, keys, auth files).
- If a change touches agent workflow rules, read
AGENTS.md, pi/AGENTS.md, and relevant docs/agents/* before judging.
Inputs to inspect
Choose the narrowest source that matches the request:
- Local uncommitted change:
git status --short, git diff, and git diff --staged.
- Local branch vs base:
git diff --stat <base>...HEAD and targeted file reads.
- GitHub PR:
gh pr view, gh pr diff, checks if relevant.
- GitLab MR:
glab mr view, glab mr diff, pipeline if relevant.
Also inspect nearby tests, docs, and existing patterns for changed files. Do not introduce a new test framework during review.
Review workflow
- Identify scope: files changed, intent, base branch, and platform object if any.
- Build a risk map:
- behavior changes
- compatibility/API changes
- security/privacy risk
- data migration or persistence risk
- test/CI risk
- docs or agent-instruction drift
- Read changed files and the closest existing implementation patterns.
- Check tests and validation commands. If not run, say so.
- Produce findings by severity:
- Blocker: likely broken, unsafe, or violates hard repo rules.
- Major: should fix before merge.
- Minor: cleanup or maintainability.
- Nit: optional style.
- If no material findings, say what you checked and remaining risk.
Output contract
Return:
- Verdict: approve / approve-with-nits / request-changes / needs-more-info
- Scope reviewed: local diff, branch range, PR, or MR
- Findings: severity, file/path, evidence, recommendation
- Validation: commands observed/run or not run
- Residual risk: unknowns and follow-ups
