pr-review-and-document

name	pr-review-and-document
description	This skill should be used when the user asks to "review PR and save results", "run PR review with documentation", "create PR review document", "review and document PR", "save PR review to docs", "document PR review", or mentions reviewing a PR with the intention of saving the review results. Executes comprehensive PR review using pr-review-toolkit with opus model and posts results as a PR comment.
allowed-tools	Bash(${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/*)

PR Review and Document

Execute comprehensive PR review using pr-review-toolkit and post structured results as a PR comment.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when:

• A comprehensive PR review needs to be documented on the PR
• A formal review record is required for a feature branch
• Review findings need to be visible directly on the PR for team reference

Workflow

Step 1: Get PR Number (Cache-Aware)

PR_NUMBER=$("${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/get-pr-number.sh")

This uses the branch-to-PR-number cache (branch-map.json) with 1-hour TTL, falling back to GitHub API on cache miss.

If no PR exists for the current branch, inform the user and stop.

Step 2: Check Existing Review Comment (Cache-Aware)

EXISTING_CONTENT=$(${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/cache-read-comment.sh "$PR_NUMBER")

This uses the local cache if available, falling back to GitHub API on cache miss.

If content is returned:

• Extract metadata from <!-- pr-review-metadata ... --> block
• Note the current review_round and issues status
• Read .pr-review-cache/pr-${PR_NUMBER}.json and save .content_hash as EXPECTED_CONTENT_HASH
• Preserve any existing [Gemini] and [Codex] issues and review_sources metadata when writing the next review

Step 3: Execute PR Review

Launch the pr-review-toolkit with opus model using the Skill tool:

Skill: pr-review-toolkit:review-pr
Args: all
Model: opus

Required agents (always run):

• code-reviewer - General code quality and CLAUDE.md compliance
• code-simplifier - Code simplification opportunities
• silent-failure-hunter - Error handling and silent failure detection
• type-design-analyzer - Type design quality analysis
• pr-test-analyzer - Test coverage analysis
• comment-analyzer - Comment accuracy and maintainability

Important: All agents are mandatory for every review to ensure comprehensive coverage.

Step 4: Format Review Comment

Structure the review as a PR comment with hidden metadata and collapsible sections.

Character Limit: Keep total content under ~40K characters (GitHub limit is 65,536).

Multi-source compatibility: If an existing review comment is present, do not blindly regenerate the whole comment. Merge the new Claude findings into the existing structure:

• Upgrade metadata to schema 1.1 before writing. Prefer the shared helper:

  METADATA_JSON=$(printf '%s\n' "$EXISTING_CONTENT" | ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/review-metadata-upgrade.sh --stdin --last-writer pr-review-and-document)
  

• After editing metadata JSON (e.g. via jq), replace the hidden block with the shared helper:

  # Set up a temp file for the modified metadata JSON.
  # (If this code block already declares its own trap, extend it instead of adding a second line.)
  METADATA_FILE=$(mktemp)
  trap 'rm -f "$METADATA_FILE"' EXIT
  
  # Write the edited metadata JSON to the temp file.
  printf '%s' "$METADATA_JSON" > "$METADATA_FILE"
  
  # Replace the metadata block in the comment.
  UPDATED_CONTENT=$(printf '%s\n' "$EXISTING_CONTENT" | ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/review-metadata-replace.sh --stdin --metadata-file "$METADATA_FILE")
  

• Preserve review_sources.gemini, review_sources.codex, [Gemini] issues, and [Codex] issues
• Preserve existing issue statuses (✅, ⏭️, ⚠️, 🔴) unless the new Claude review proves they changed
• Treat untagged issues as Claude issues
• Increment PR-global review_round only when this review adds new findings; empty refreshes only update review_sources.claude.last_reviewed_*

Metadata Block Format

The metadata block uses HTML comment syntax with a specific marker for identification:

• Opening: <!-- pr-review-metadata (marker on same line as opening)
• Content: JSON object with review state
• Closing: --> on its own line after the JSON

Important: The find-review-comment.sh script searches for <!-- pr-review-metadata to identify review comments. Do not modify this marker format.

Comment Template

<!-- pr-review-metadata
{
  "schema_version": "1.1",
  "created_by": "pr-review-and-document",
  "last_writer": "pr-review-and-document",
  "skill": "pr-review-and-document",
  "review_round": 1,
  "created_at": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
  "updated_at": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
  "branch": "branch-name",
  "base": "main",
  "issues": {
    "critical": { "total": 0, "fixed": 0 },
    "important": { "total": 0, "fixed": 0 },
    "suggestions": { "total": 0, "fixed": 0 }
  },
  "agents_run": ["code-reviewer", "silent-failure-hunter", "type-design-analyzer", "pr-test-analyzer", "code-simplifier", "comment-analyzer"],
  "review_sources": {
    "claude": {
      "last_reviewed_head": "HEAD_SHA",
      "last_reviewed_at": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
      "agents_run": ["code-reviewer", "silent-failure-hunter", "type-design-analyzer", "pr-test-analyzer", "code-simplifier", "comment-analyzer"]
    },
    "gemini": {
      "consumed_comment_ids": [],
      "last_integrated_at": null
    },
    "codex": {
      "last_reviewed_head": null,
      "last_reviewed_at": null,
      "posted_finding_ids": []
    }
  }
}
-->

## 🤖 PR Review

**Branch:** `branch-name` → `base-branch`
**Round:** N | **Updated:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Reviewer Sources:** Claude

---

### 📊 Summary

| Category | Total | Fixed | Remaining |
|----------|-------|-------|-----------|
| 🔴 Critical | X | X | X |
| 🟡 Important | X | X | X |
| 💡 Suggestions | X | X | X |

**Status:** [✅ Ready to merge | ⚠️ Needs attention | 🔴 Blocking issues]

---

### 🔴 Critical Issues

<details open>
<summary><b>1. [Status Emoji] Issue Title</b></summary>

**File:** `path/to/file.ts:line`

**Problem:** Description of the issue.

**Fix:** Resolution or suggested fix.

</details>

[Repeat for each critical issue]

---

### 🟡 Important Issues

<details>
<summary><b>1. [Status Emoji] Issue Title</b></summary>

**File:** `path/to/file.ts:line`

**Problem:** Description.

**Fix:** Resolution.

</details>

[Repeat for each important issue]

---

### 💡 Suggestions

<details>
<summary>View N suggestions (M addressed)</summary>

| # | Suggestion | Status |
|---|------------|--------|
| 1 | Description | ✅ / ⏭️ |

</details>

---

### ✨ Strengths

- Positive observation 1
- Positive observation 2

---

### 📋 Type Design Ratings

| Type | Encap. | Express. | Useful. | Enforce. | Overall |
|------|--------|----------|---------|----------|---------|
| TypeName | X/10 | X/10 | X/10 | X/10 | **X/10** |

---

### 🎯 Action Plan

**Before Merge:**
- [ ] Action item 1
- [x] Completed item

**After Merge (Backlog):**
- [ ] Future improvement

---

<sub>Generated by pr-review-and-document skill | Round N | [View edit history](click edited)</sub>

Step 5: Write Review Comment (Cache-Aware)

Pipe the formatted content directly to cache-write-comment.sh via --stdin:

if [ -n "${EXPECTED_CONTENT_HASH:-}" ]; then
  printf '%s\n' "$REVIEW_CONTENT" | ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/cache-write-comment.sh --stdin "$PR_NUMBER" --expected-content-hash "$EXPECTED_CONTENT_HASH"
else
  printf '%s\n' "$REVIEW_CONTENT" | ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/cache-write-comment.sh --stdin "$PR_NUMBER"
fi

The script will:

• Update local cache (.pr-review-cache/pr-{N}.json)
• Sync to GitHub via upsert-review-comment.sh --stdin（stdin pipe，不使用 temp file）
• Return the comment URL
• Exit 4 if another tool updated the cache after this skill read it; re-read, merge your changes into the newer comment, and retry once

Step 6: Verify

Confirm the comment was posted successfully by checking the returned URL.

Status Indicators

Use consistent status indicators:

Indicator	Meaning
✅	Fixed / Resolved
⏭️	Deferred / Skipped intentionally
⚠️	Needs attention
🔴	Blocking / Critical

Multi-Round Reviews

When updating an existing review:

1. Update review_round and timestamps based on whether this round adds new findings:
   • New findings present: increment review_round, update updated_at, update issue counts and statuses.
   • Empty refresh (no new findings): keep review_round unchanged; update only review_sources.claude.last_reviewed_head and review_sources.claude.last_reviewed_at. Do not modify existing issue statuses or counts.
2. Preserve review_sources metadata and existing non-Claude issue sections.
3. Keep the same comment (GitHub tracks edit history).

Previous review content is preserved in GitHub's "edited" dropdown, providing full audit trail.

Metadata Migration

When reading older schema_version: "1.0" metadata, upgrade in memory before writing:

1.0 field	1.1 field
skill	created_by if missing, skill legacy field, and current last_writer
agents_run	review_sources.claude.agents_run and top-level agents_run during compatibility window
gemini_integrated_ids	review_sources.gemini.consumed_comment_ids
gemini_integration_date	review_sources.gemini.last_integrated_at

Do not downgrade. New writes should use comment metadata schema 1.1; the cache envelope remains schema_version: "1.0".

Use ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/review-metadata-upgrade.sh for this migration when possible, then use ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/review-metadata-replace.sh to merge the returned JSON back into the <!-- pr-review-metadata ... --> block without touching issue sections.

Integration Notes

Using with pr-review-toolkit

This skill wraps the pr-review-toolkit:review-pr command and:

1. Forces opus model for comprehensive analysis
2. Always runs all 6 review agents (mandatory)
3. Formats output as structured PR comment
4. Posts directly to the PR

Character Limit Handling

If review content exceeds ~40K characters:

1. Collapse more sections with <details>
2. Summarize verbose descriptions
3. Move detailed code examples to collapsed sections

No PR Available

If the current branch has no open PR:

• Inform the user
• Suggest creating a PR first: gh pr create

Validation Checklist

Before posting the review comment:

• PR number correctly identified
• All 6 review agents executed
• Metadata JSON is valid
• Issue counts match content
• Status indicators are consistent
• Content is under 40K characters
• Comment posted/updated successfully