Review GitHub pull requests for correctness, design quality, test coverage, security, performance, 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".
Installation
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Review GitHub pull requests for correctness, design quality, test coverage, security, performance, 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".
GitHub PR Review Skill
Review pull requests with emphasis on what automated checks usually miss:
correctness, design quality, security, backward compatibility, test adequacy,
maintainability, concurrency risks, and performance regressions.
Usage Modes
No Argument
If the user invokes /gh-pr-review with no arguments, do not perform a review.
Ask what they want reviewed:
What would you like me to review?
A PR number or URL, for example /gh-pr-review 12345
# Get current branch name
git branch --show-current
# Get list of changed files compared to main
git diff --name-only main...HEAD
# Get full diff compared to main
git diff main...HEAD
# Get commit log for the branch
git log main..HEAD --oneline
# Get diff stats
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 from a GitHub PR automation, PR metadata may already be injected
into the prompt. Detect this mode by the presence of structured PR context,
PR body, comments, or review comments in the prompt.
The prompt may already contain:
PR metadata: title, author, branch names, additions/deletions, and file count
PR body or description
Comments and review comments with file or line references
Changed file paths and change types
Use git commands to get the diff and commit history. The base branch name is in
the prompt context, for example PR Branch: <head> -> <base> or a baseBranch
field.
# Get the full diff against the base branch
git diff origin/<baseBranch>...HEAD
# Get diff stats
git diff --stat origin/<baseBranch>...HEAD
# Get commit history for this PR
git log origin/<baseBranch>..HEAD --oneline
# If the base branch ref is not available, fetch it first
git fetch origin <baseBranch> --depth=1
Do not use gh CLI commands in this mode if the action environment only
provides git and injected PR metadata.
Review Philosophy
Investigate, don't guess - When uncertain whether a checklist item
applies, inspect surrounding code or spawn a sub-agent to gather context.
Review the design, not just the implementation - Question hidden state,
side-channel behavior, unclear ownership, fragile ordering, and missing
interface contracts.
Everything reported should matter - Avoid nits. If it is worth writing
down, it should affect correctness, maintainability, security, performance,
compatibility, or reviewability.
Be specific and actionable - Reference file paths and line numbers.
Name the function, module, pattern, or API the author should use.
Match the immediate context - Read how similar behavior is already
implemented nearby before flagging or accepting a pattern.
Assume competence - Explain only the context needed to make the requested
change clear.
No repetition - Each observation appears in exactly one section.
Using Sub-Agents
For medium or large PRs, spawn sub-agents to investigate independent areas:
changed subsystems, expected test locations, public API callers, security
surfaces, or unfamiliar infrastructure. Ask each sub-agent to return concise
evidence and file references, not a full review.
Before finalizing, fact-check each reported issue. For every non-obvious claim,
re-read the relevant code or ask a sub-agent to verify it as valid,
invalid, or needs rewording. Drop invalid issues and reword unclear ones.
Review Workflow
Step 1: Understand Context
Before reviewing, build a clear picture of what changed and why:
Identify the purpose of the change from title, description, linked issue, and
commit messages.
Group changes by type: product behavior, API, data model, tests, docs,
configuration, build, or deployment.
Note the size and risk profile: changed files, touched subsystems, public
interfaces, persisted data, and production paths.
Read surrounding code for significantly changed files to understand existing
patterns.
Review prior comments so you do not duplicate feedback or miss existing
reviewer concerns.
Step 2: Deep Review
Evaluate each meaningful changed line against the checklist below. Prioritize
bugs and risks over style preferences.
Step 3: Check Backward Compatibility
Backward compatibility matters for public APIs, persisted data, configuration,
wire protocols, CLI behavior, migrations, user-visible behavior, and stable
integrations.
Check for:
Removed, renamed, or re-scoped public interfaces.
Changed function signatures, required parameters, defaults, return shapes, or
error behavior.
Changed persisted formats, migration assumptions, or deployment order
requirements.
Silent behavior changes that existing users may not notice until production.
Missing migration path, release note, or compatibility window for intentional
breaks.
When unsure, ask:
Would existing usage break silently?
Would existing usage fail loudly but recoverably?
Is there a migration path that avoids immediate user action?
Is the behavior documented and covered by tests?
Does the PR clearly explain why the compatibility risk is acceptable?
Step 4: Formulate Review
Write findings as concrete requests. Each finding should include the affected
file or behavior, why it matters, and what change would resolve it.
Needs Discussion - The core issue is design, product intent, migration
strategy, or ownership and needs agreement before implementation changes.
Missing tests for new behavior or bug fixes normally means Request Changes.
Review Checklist
Correctness
The implementation matches the stated product or technical intent.
Edge cases, empty inputs, invalid inputs, and failure paths are handled.
State transitions are explicit and reversible where needed.
Ordering assumptions are documented or enforced by code.
Errors are surfaced at the right level with enough context to debug.
The change does not introduce stale reads, lost writes, double execution,
duplicate registration, or cleanup gaps.
Design And Maintainability
Abstractions are clear and necessary for the current requirements.
New interfaces have clear ownership, invariants, and lifecycle behavior.
Hidden flags, side-channel state, and implicit calling conventions are
avoided or clearly justified.
The code follows established local patterns in the same module or nearby
subsystem.
Helpers are not created for one-off trivial logic unless they improve
readability meaningfully.
Documentation and examples show the correct path directly, not a confusing
mix of anti-patterns and corrections.
API And Compatibility
Public or stable interfaces remain compatible, or the PR includes a clear
migration plan.
Defaults, required parameters, return values, error types, and side effects
are unchanged unless intentionally documented.
Persisted data, schema changes, and protocol changes are backward and
forward compatible where deployment ordering requires it.
Deprecated paths remain available long enough for users to migrate.
Compatibility risks are called out in release notes, docs, or PR text.
Testing
New behavior has focused tests.
Bug fixes include regression tests that fail without the fix.
Tests are placed near related coverage instead of creating isolated test
files unnecessarily.
Tests cover boundary conditions, negative cases, and representative real
usage.
Assertions verify important outputs and error messages, not just that code
executes.
Tests avoid brittle timing, ordering, environment, and network assumptions.
Shared fixtures or helpers reduce duplication without hiding the key test
behavior.
Security
Inputs crossing trust boundaries are validated, normalized, and bounded.
The change does not expose secrets, credentials, tokens, internal URLs, or
sensitive logs.
Authentication, authorization, and tenancy checks remain enforced on every
path.
File paths, shell commands, URLs, redirects, templates, and queries are not
vulnerable to injection or traversal.
Deserialization, dynamic evaluation, plugin loading, and dependency changes
do not expand the attack surface unnecessarily.
CI, deployment, and release changes do not grant untrusted code access to
sensitive credentials or privileged environments.
Concurrency And Reliability
Shared mutable state is synchronized or confined to one owner.
Multiple locks or resources are acquired in a consistent order.
Retries are idempotent or have safeguards against duplicate side effects.
Timeouts, cancellation, cleanup, and partial failure behavior are defined.
Background jobs, queues, listeners, and subscriptions cannot leak or run
after their owner is gone.
Distributed or multi-process behavior handles race conditions and stale
state.
Performance
Hot paths avoid unnecessary allocations, repeated parsing, excessive I/O,
and avoidable network calls.
Loops and queries scale with expected data size.
Caches have clear invalidation, bounds, and ownership.
Large payloads are streamed, paginated, batched, or bounded where needed.
The PR includes benchmarks or measurements for risky performance-sensitive
changes.
Observability And Operations
Important failures have logs, metrics, traces, or events at the right
level.
Logs include useful context without leaking sensitive data.
Feature flags, migrations, rollouts, and rollback paths are clear for
production changes.
Configuration changes have safe defaults and validation.
Alerts or dashboards are updated when production behavior changes.
Output Format
Structure reviews like this. Omit sections where there are no problems to
report. Do not write "No concerns" or affirmative filler.
## PR Review: #<number>
<!-- Or for local branch reviews: -->
## Branch Review: <branch-name> (vs main)### Summary
What the PR does in one sentence, followed by the overall verdict.
### Correctness
[Problems only]
### Design And Maintainability
[Problems only]
### API And Compatibility
[Problems only]
### Testing
[Problems only]
### Security
[Problems only]
### Concurrency And Reliability
[Problems only]
### Performance
[Problems only]
### Observability And Operations
[Problems only]
### Recommendation**Approve** / **Request Changes** / **Needs Discussion**
[Brief justification focused on what blocks approval, if anything]
Specific Comments
Only include this section if the user requests a detailed or in-depth review.
Do not repeat observations already made in other sections. Use it for additional
file-specific feedback that does not fit the categorized sections.
### Specific Comments-`src/module.ts:42` - This branch does not handle an empty result set, so the caller receives a success response with incomplete data.
-`test/module.test.ts:100-105` - Add a regression test for the error path introduced by this change.
Files To Reference
When reviewing, consult project files for context rather than relying on memory.
Common examples include:
Repository instructions such as README.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, CLAUDE.md,
AGENTS.md, or .cursor/rules/.
Existing tests near the changed code.
Nearby implementations of the same pattern.
API docs, migration docs, release notes, or schema definitions touched by the
PR.
Build, CI, deployment, and configuration files changed by the PR.
