| inclusion | auto |
| name | qe-pr-review |
| description | Scope-aware GitHub PR review with user-friendly tone and trust tier validation |
PR Review Workflow
Review pull requests with correct AQE scope boundaries, clear communication, and actionable feedback.
Arguments
<pr-number> — GitHub PR number to review. If omitted, prompt the user.
Steps
1. Read the Full Diff
gh pr diff <pr-number>
gh pr view <pr-number>
Read the complete diff and PR description. Do not skim — read every changed file.
2. Scope Check
- Only analyze AQE/QE skills (NOT Claude Flow platform skills)
- Platform skills to EXCLUDE: v3-, flow-nexus-, agentdb-, reasoningbank-, swarm-, github-, hive-mind-advanced, hooks-automation, iterative-loop, stream-chain, skill-builder, sparc-methodology, pair-programming, release, debug-loop, aqe-v2-v3-migration
- If the PR touches skills, verify the count/scope matches expectations (~78 AQE skills)
- Flag any platform skill changes that may have leaked into an AQE-focused PR
3. Summarize Changes
Write a user-friendly summary of what changed and why:
- Focus on outcomes, not implementation details
- Avoid overly technical jargon
- Keep it to 3-5 bullet points
4. Trust Tier Validation
For any skill changes, validate trust_tier assignments:
- tier 3 = has eval infrastructure (evals/, schemas/, scripts/)
- tier 2 = tested but no eval framework
- tier 1 = untested
- Flag inconsistencies (e.g., a skill with evals at tier 2 should be tier 3)
5. Code Quality Review
Check for:
- Hardcoded version strings
- Production safety concerns (adapter changes, breaking changes)
- Missing test coverage for new code
- Security issues (exposed secrets, injection risks)
6. Post Review
gh pr review <pr-number> --body "review comments"
Communication Rules
- Keep tone constructive and actionable
- Be outcome-focused: what should the author do, not what's wrong
- Group related comments together instead of posting many small ones
- If approving with minor suggestions, use APPROVE with comments, not REQUEST_CHANGES
