| name | review-pr |
| description | Performs full PR review with blast-radius analysis and structured output. Use when reviewing a complete pull request, checking merge readiness, or assessing multi-commit changes against a base branch. |
Review PR
Execution context: Cross-skill script paths use ../ relative references.
Full structural code review of a pull request or branch diff.
When to use this skill
User request → Which review skill?
├─ "review this PR" / "is this ready to merge?" → review-pr (this skill)
├─ "review this branch" + multiple commits → review-pr
├─ "check my changes" + last commit only → review-delta
├─ "did I break anything?" → review-delta
├─ code-review workflow escalated to HIGH → review-pr (called by workflow)
└─ code-review workflow at LOW/MEDIUM → review-delta (called by workflow)
- Reviewing a complete PR (multiple commits against base branch)
- Checking if a branch is safe to merge (go/no-go decision)
- Need blast-radius across ALL commits (not just last one)
For quick single-commit reviews → use [review-delta] instead.
How to use it
1. Identify the changes
git diff --name-only main...HEAD
2. Run blast-radius on ALL changed files
bash ../code-graph/scripts/blast-radius.sh $(git diff --name-only main...HEAD)
3. Review based on risk level
Follow the escalation pattern from [code-graph] skill:
- LOW → skim changed files
- MEDIUM → read changed + direct callers
- HIGH/CRITICAL → read entire blast radius + run hub detection
4. For each reviewed file, check
- Security: auth/validation removed? access control weakened?
- API contracts: public interfaces changed? breaking changes?
- Test coverage: changed functions have tests? new code untested?
- Dependencies: new imports? removed dependencies still used elsewhere?
5. Generate structured report
## PR Review: <title>
### Summary
<1-3 sentence overview>
### Risk Assessment
- **Overall risk**: Low / Medium / High / Critical
- **Blast radius**: X files, Y direct callers impacted
- **Test coverage**: N changed functions covered / M total
### File-by-File Review
#### <file_path>
- **Changes**: <what changed>
- **Impact**: <who depends on this>
- **Issues**: <bugs, concerns>
### Test Coverage Gaps
- <function> in <file> — no test coverage found
### Recommendations
1. <specific, actionable>
2. <specific, actionable>
Tips
- Focus on highest-impact files first (most dependents from blast radius)
- Check if renamed/moved functions updated all callers
- For large PRs (50+ files) → warn user review may be incomplete
- Run hub detection to see if changed files are architectural hotspots
