review-pr

name	review-pr
description	Review a PR on artifacts (OpenResty/nginx+Lua artifact proxy serving GCS S3-compatible storage)
argument-hint	<pr-number-or-url>
disable-model-invocation	true
allowed-tools	Read, Bash(gh repo view *), Bash(gh pr view *), Bash(gh pr diff *), Bash(gh pr comment *), Bash(gh api *), Bash(git diff *), Bash(git log *), Bash(git show *)

Review GitHub PR

You are an expert code reviewer. Review this PR: $ARGUMENTS

Determine PR target

Parse $ARGUMENTS to extract the repo and PR number:

• If arguments contain REPO: and PR_NUMBER: (CI mode), use those values directly.
• If the argument is a GitHub URL (starts with https://github.com/), extract owner/repo and the PR number from it.
• If the argument is just a number, use the current repo from gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner.

Output mode

• CI mode (arguments contain REPO: and PR_NUMBER:): post inline comments and summary to GitHub.
• Local mode (all other cases): output the review as text directly. Do NOT post anything to GitHub.

Steps

1. Fetch PR details:

gh pr view <number> --repo <owner/repo> --json title,body,headRefOid,author,files
gh pr diff <number> --repo <owner/repo>

2. Read changed files to understand the full context around each change (not just the diff hunks).

3. Analyze the changes against these criteria:

Area	What to check
Lua correctness	Nil checks before indexing ngx.var/env vars; proper use of ngx.exit() vs return; no blocking I/O calls (use ngx.location.capture or cosocket)
S3 signature / request signing	Correct HMAC-SHA256 construction, canonical request, string-to-sign; URL encoding of keys and prefixes matches S3 spec
GitHub auth logic	Auth cache invalidation on revoked access; bot credentials properly gated; restriction lists correctly parsed
nginx config template	Variable substitution correctness; no broken ${} references; upstream and proxy_pass consistency
Shell scripts	Unquoted variable expansions that could break on spaces or empty values; proper error handling with set -e or explicit checks
Python tests	Tests actually assert on response content, not just status codes; boto3 calls use the right bucket/key paths
Helm chart	Resource limits present; env var names match what start.sh and Lua scripts expect; no hardcoded secrets
Security	Credentials or tokens in plain text; path traversal via unchecked user input in Lua; overly permissive CORS or auth bypass
Breaking changes	Env var renames that break existing deployments; nginx directive changes that alter behavior for existing clients
Docker image	Base image pin still uses a specific tag (not latest); new runtime deps added to apk add

4. Deliver your review:

If CI mode: post to GitHub

Part A: Inline file comments

For each specific issue, post a comment on the exact file and line:

gh api -X POST -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" "repos/<owner/repo>/pulls/<number>/comments" -f body="Your comment<br><br>— Claude Code" -f path="path/to/file" -F line=<line_number> -f side="RIGHT" -f commit_id="<headRefOid>"

The command must stay on a single bash line. Never use newlines in bash commands — use <br> for line breaks in comment bodies. Never put <br> inside code blocks or suggestion blocks.

Each inline comment must:

• Be short and direct — say what's wrong, why it's wrong, and how to fix it in 1-3 sentences
• No filler, no complex words, no long explanations
• When the fix is a concrete line change (not architectural), include a GitHub suggestion block so the author can apply it in one click:

  ```suggestion
  corrected-line-here
  ```
  

  Only suggest when you can show the exact replacement. For architectural or design issues, just describe the problem. Example with a suggestion block:

  gh api ... -f body=$'Missing the shared-guidelines update command.<br><br>\n```suggestion\n/plugin update shared-guidelines@scality-agent-hub\n/plugin update scality-skills@scality-agent-hub\n```\n<br><br>— Claude Code' ...
  

• When the comment contains a suggestion block, use $'...' quoting with \n for code fence boundaries. Escape single quotes as \' (e.g., don\'t)
• End with: — Claude Code

Use the line number from the new version of the file (the line number you'd see after the PR is merged), which corresponds to the line parameter in the GitHub API.

Part B: Summary comment

gh pr comment <number> --repo <owner/repo> --body "LGTM<br><br>Review by Claude Code"

The command must stay on a single bash line. Never use newlines in bash commands — use <br> for line breaks in comment bodies.

Do not describe or summarize the PR. For each issue, state the problem on one line, then list one or more suggestions below it:

- <issue>
  - <suggestion>
  - <suggestion>

If no issues: just say "LGTM". End with: Review by Claude Code

If local mode: output the review as text

Do NOT post anything to GitHub. Instead, output the review directly as text.

For each issue found, output:

**<file_path>:<line_number>** — <what's wrong and how to fix it>

When the fix is a concrete line change, include a fenced code block showing the suggested replacement.

At the end, output a summary section listing all issues. If no issues: just say "LGTM".

End with: Review by Claude Code

What NOT to do

• Do not comment on markdown formatting preferences
• Do not suggest refactors unrelated to the PR's purpose
• Do not praise code — only flag problems or stay silent
• If no issues are found, post only a summary saying "LGTM"
• Do not flag style issues already covered by the project's linter