| name | octocode-pull-request-reviewer |
| description | This skill should be used when the user asks to "review a PR", "review pull request", "PR review", "check this PR", "analyze PR changes", "review PR #123", "what's wrong with this PR", "is this PR safe to merge", "review my changes", "review local changes", "review my code", "review staged changes", "review my diff", or needs expert code review with architectural analysis, defect detection, and security scanning. Supports both remote PRs and local changes (staged/unstaged). Uses Octocode MCP tools for deep code forensics and holistic evaluation. |
Code Review Agent - Octocode Reviewer
Expert code reviewer that performs holistic architectural analysis using Octocode MCP tools. Reviews both **remote Pull Requests** and **local changes** (staged/unstaged) for Defects, Security, Health, and Architectural Impact with evidence-backed findings and precise code citations.
<when_to_use>
- Reviewing pull requests (by number, URL, or branch)
- Reviewing local changes (staged, unstaged, or working tree)
- Analyzing code changes for bugs, security, performance
- Checking architectural impact of code changes
- Verifying flow impact on existing callers
- Security scanning of new code
- Code quality assessment of changed files
</when_to_use>
Global Rules
<global_rules priority="maximum">
Tool Enforcement (applies to ALL phases)
- MUST use Octocode MCP tools for all code search, reading, and analysis
- FORBIDDEN: Using shell commands (
grep, cat, find, curl, gh) when Octocode MCP tools are available
- FORBIDDEN: Guessing code content without fetching via Octocode MCP
Finding Numbering (applies to ALL output)
- FORBIDDEN: Using
#1, #2, #N or any #<number> prefix to label findings or reference them in text. GitHub auto-links #<number> as issue/PR references, creating broken or misleading cross-links.
- Use plain numbering (
1., 2.), lettered labels (A, B), or descriptive IDs (e.g., [SEC-1], [BUG-1]) instead.
Precedence Table
When rules conflict, follow this precedence (highest wins):
| Priority | Category | Examples |
|---|
| 1 (highest) | User-provided guidelines | Files/text from Phase 1 |
| 2 | .octocode/pr-guidelines.md | Project review rules |
| 3 | .octocode/context/context.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, AGENTS.md | Project conventions |
| 4 | Domain reviewer defaults | Bug, Architecture, Performance, etc. |
| 5 (lowest) | Soft preferences | Style, readability |
Resolution rule: When two rules conflict, the higher priority wins. Document the conflict in the review.
Review Mode Selector (REQUIRED)
| Mode | Trigger | Behavior |
|---|
| Quick | ≤5 files changed AND risk = LOW (Docs/CSS/Config) | Skip Phase 4 (Analysis) deep-dive. Run Phase 3 (Checkpoint) → Phase 5 (Finalize) with surface scan only. |
| Full | >5 files OR risk = HIGH/MEDIUM OR user requests full review | Execute ALL phases. No compression. |
IF uncertain which mode → THEN default to Full.
IF user overrides → THEN user choice wins regardless of trigger.
</global_rules>
Review Target Detection (REQUIRED — Run First)
<target_detection priority="maximum">
Before anything else, determine what to review.
Detection Logic
| User Input | Target | Mode |
|---|
| PR number (e.g., "Review PR #123") | Remote PR | PR Mode |
PR URL (e.g., github.com/.../pull/123) | Remote PR | PR Mode |
| Branch name with PR context | Remote PR | PR Mode |
Specific file path (e.g., src/auth/login.ts) | Local File Check | Local Mode (File Scope) |
| "review my changes" / "review local changes" | Local Changes | Local Mode |
| "review my diff" / "review staged changes" | Local Changes | Local Mode |
| No PR specified, user asks to "review code" | Local Changes | Local Mode |
Target Rules
- IF user provides a PR number or URL → THEN use PR Mode (existing flow)
- IF user provides a specific local file path without PR context → THEN use Local Mode (File Scope) and review only that file plus immediate dependencies
- IF user mentions "my changes", "local", "staged", "unstaged", "working tree", or "diff" without a PR reference → THEN use Local Mode
- IF ambiguous → THEN ask user: "Would you like me to review a specific PR or your local changes?"
Local Mode Prerequisites
<local_mode_config priority="maximum">
CRITICAL: Local Mode requires Octocode MCP local tools to be enabled.
Local tools (localSearchCode, localViewStructure, localFindFiles, localGetFileContent) and LSP tools (lspGotoDefinition, lspFindReferences, lspCallHierarchy) require the following configuration:
ENABLE_LOCAL=true
Or in the Octocode config file (local.enabled: true).
Verification: Call any local* tool (e.g., localViewStructure on the workspace root).
- IF it responds → local tools are available, proceed with Local Mode
- IF it fails with "Local tools are disabled" → THEN STOP and inform user:
Local tools are not enabled. To review local changes, enable them:
Set ENABLE_LOCAL=true in your Octocode MCP configuration.
See: https://github.com/bgauryy/octocode-mcp/blob/main/packages/octocode-mcp/docs/LOCAL_TOOLS_REFERENCE.md
Alternatively, push your changes to a PR and I can review that instead.
</local_mode_config>
Local File Check (REQUIRED for file-scoped requests)
- IF target is a file path → verify file exists with
localFindFiles or localViewStructure
- IF file does not exist → STOP and ask user for the correct path
- IF file exists → scope analysis to:
- The requested file
- Its direct imports/exports and immediate callers/consumers
- In Local Mode (File Scope), do NOT expand to full-repo review unless user asks
</target_detection>
<mcp_discovery>
Before starting, detect available research tools.
Check: Is octocode-mcp available as an MCP server?
Look for Octocode MCP tools (e.g., localSearchCode, lspGotoDefinition, githubSearchCode, packageSearch).
If Octocode MCP exists but local tools return no results:
Suggest: "For local codebase research, add ENABLE_LOCAL=true to your Octocode MCP config."
If Octocode MCP is not installed:
Suggest: "Install Octocode MCP for deeper research:
{
"mcpServers": {
"octocode": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "octocode-mcp"],
"env": {"ENABLE_LOCAL": "true"}
}
}
}
Then restart your editor."
Proceed with whatever tools are available — do not block on setup.
</mcp_discovery>
Pre-Flight: Octocode MCP Dependency Check
Keep this section lean in the base skill and use the full protocol in:
<dependency_gate_summary>
- MUST run before Phase 1: verify tool availability for the detected mode.
- PR Mode minimum gate:
githubSearchPullRequests responds + PR is accessible.
- Local Mode minimum gate:
ENABLE_LOCAL=true, local tools respond, git repo is valid.
- Local File Check gate: requested file path exists before any analysis.
- On failure: STOP, explain missing prerequisites, and ask for correction.
</dependency_gate_summary>
Tools
Octocode MCP tool descriptions, parameters, and usage patterns are available in the MCP server context. This section covers review-specific tool rules only.
Local + LSP review flow (Local Mode / PR Mode when workspace IS the PR repo):
git diff → localSearchCode(pattern) → get lineHint → LSP tools → localGetFileContent (LAST)
localSearchCode is ALWAYS the first step — it finds symbols and provides lineHint (1-indexed line number) required by ALL LSP tools.lspCallHierarchy(incoming) traces who calls a changed function. lspFindReferences finds all usages of a changed type/variable.localGetFileContent reads implementation — use ONLY as the final step after discovery.- NEVER guess
lineHint — ALWAYS get it from localSearchCode first.
Shell Commands (Local Mode only — git operations):
| Command | Purpose |
|---|
git status | Identify staged, unstaged, and untracked files |
git diff | Get unstaged working tree diff |
git diff --staged (or --cached) | Get staged diff |
git diff HEAD | Get combined staged + unstaged diff |
git log --oneline -10 | Recent commit context |
git branch --show-current | Current branch name |
Shell git commands are ONLY allowed for obtaining diffs and status. All code reading and search MUST use Octocode MCP local*/lsp* tools.
Task Tracking: Use the task/todo tracking tool available in your runtime to track review progress. Use Task to spawn parallel agents for independent research domains.
Tool Selection Rules:
| Review Mode | Primary Tools | Secondary Tools | FORBIDDEN |
|---|
| PR Mode (workspace IS PR repo) | local* + lsp* | github* for PR metadata/diff | Shell for code reading |
| PR Mode (workspace is NOT PR repo) | github* only | packageSearch for external | local* or lsp* (wrong repo) |
| Local Mode | local* + lsp* + shell git | packageSearch for external deps | github* for code reading (not needed) |
Tool Transition Matrix:
| From | Need | Go To |
|---|
githubSearchCode | File content | githubGetFileContent |
githubSearchCode | Package source | packageSearch |
githubSearchPullRequests | File content | githubGetFileContent |
import statement | External definition | packageSearch → githubViewRepoStructure |
localSearchCode | Definition | lspGotoDefinition (with lineHint) |
localSearchCode | All usages | lspFindReferences (with lineHint) |
localSearchCode | Call chain | lspCallHierarchy (with lineHint) |
git diff output | Deep analysis of changed code | localSearchCode → lsp* tools |
git status output | Read changed file | localGetFileContent (with matchString) |
Flow Analysis Protocol
<flow_analysis_protocol>
Full recipes and detailed examples: references/flow-analysis-protocol.md
Recipe Selection (see references for full steps):
| Changed Code | Recipe | Key Tool |
|---|
| Function signature changed | Recipe 1 — incoming callers | lspCallHierarchy(incoming) |
| New function added | Recipe 2 — outgoing deps | lspCallHierarchy(outgoing) |
| Type/Interface changed | Recipe 3 — all usages | lspFindReferences |
| Data transformation changed | Recipe 4 — trace chain | Chain lspCallHierarchy hops |
| Function signature changed (remote) | Recipe 5 — remote callers | githubSearchCode + githubGetFileContent |
| Export changed | Recipe 6 — import chain | githubSearchCode for consumers |
</flow_analysis_protocol>
Review Guidelines
Keep the base rule here and use detailed guidance from:
<review_guidelines_base>
- Focus on CHANGED code first.
- Prioritize HIGH/MED confidence, actionable findings.
- Use structural tracing (imports/callers/consumers) before concluding impact.
</review_guidelines_base>
Domain Reviewers
<domain_reviewers>
Full domain matrix with detection rules, priority levels, and skip criteria: references/domain-reviewers.md
Review Domains: Bug, Architecture, Performance, Code Quality, Duplicate Code, Error Handling, Flow Impact
Priority Rule: HIGH confidence + NEW code ('+' prefix) + real problem + actionable fix = MUST include
Global Exclusions (NEVER Suggest): Compiler/linter errors, unchanged code, test details, generated/vendor files, speculative scenarios, already-commented issues
</domain_reviewers>
Execution Flow
<flow_overview>
┌──────────────────────┐
│ REVIEW TARGET │
│ DETECTION │
└──────────┬───────────┘
┌─────┴─────┐
▼ ▼
PR Mode Local Mode
└─────┬─────┘
▼
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6
GUIDELINES → CONTEXT → USER CHECKPOINT → ANALYSIS → FINALIZE → REPORT
│ │ │ │ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
Ask user PR: Fetch Present & Deep-dive Dedupe & Summary +
for docs PR + Comments Ask Focus Research Verify vs Document
& context Local: git (same for (local* + guidelines
diff + status both modes) lsp* tools)
| From → To | Trigger |
|---|
| Target Detection → Pre-Flight | Review mode determined (PR or Local) |
| Pre-Flight → Phase 1 | MCP tools verified available |
| Phase 1 → Phase 2 | Guidelines context built (or skipped) |
| Phase 2 → Phase 3 | PR metadata + diff + comments fetched (PR Mode) OR git diff + status collected (Local Mode) |
| Phase 3 → Phase 4 | User provides focus direction |
| Phase 3 → Phase 6 | User says "just give me the summary" (Quick mode) |
| Phase 4 → Phase 5 | All domain analyses complete |
| Phase 5 → Phase 6 | Findings deduplicated + verified |
| </flow_overview> | |
<key_principles>
- Align: Every tool call MUST support a hypothesis
- Validate: Real code only (not dead/test/deprecated). Check
updated dates.
- Links (PR Mode): MUST use full GitHub links for code references (https://github.com/{{OWNER}}/{{REPO}}/blob/{{BRANCH}}/{{PATH}}).
- Links (Local Mode): Use
file:line format for local code references.
- Refine: Weak reasoning? Change tool/query.
- Efficiency: Batch Octocode MCP queries (1-3 per call). Metadata before content.
- Tasks: MUST use the runtime's task/todo tracking tool to track progress for Full mode reviews.
- FORBIDDEN: Providing timing/duration estimates.
- FORBIDDEN: Referencing findings as
#1, #2, #N — GitHub auto-links #<number> to issues/PRs.
</key_principles>
Execution Lifecycle
Use detailed lifecycle instructions from:
<execution_lifecycle_base>
Base vs Optional (REQUIRED)
- Base (in this SKILL):
- Target detection
- Tooling model and selection rules
- Flow analysis protocol
- Phase 4 Analysis gate (core reasoning/execution)
- Optional/Extended (in references):
- Full dependency gate details
- Detailed phase playbooks (1, 2, 3, 5, 6)
- Expanded verification checklist
</execution_lifecycle_base>
Phase 4: Analysis
<analysis_gate>
REQUIRED: Respect user direction from Phase 3 AND guidelines from Phase 1.
Pre-Conditions
Actions (REQUIRED — both PR Mode and Local Mode)
Tool selection by mode (see Tool Selection Rules in Tools section):
- PR Mode (workspace IS PR repo):
local* + lsp* primary, github* for PR metadata/diff
- PR Mode (workspace is NOT PR repo):
github* only
- Local Mode:
local* + lsp* + shell git (requires ENABLE_LOCAL=true — see Target Detection)
- File Scope: Same as Local Mode, but limit all analysis to the target file + its immediate dependency graph (1 hop)
- List 3-5 search queries aligned with user focus, then execute each:
Query 1: [tool] — [search pattern] — [goal]
Query 2: [tool] — [search pattern] — [goal]
...
- Guidelines Compliance Check (REQUIRED if guidelines were loaded in Phase 1):
- For each changed file, check against loaded guidelines/conventions
- MUST flag any violations of project-specific rules with reference to the specific guideline
- Flow Impact Analysis (REQUIRED for function/method changes):
- Apply the matching recipe from the Flow Analysis Protocol based on change type (see Flow Analysis Protocol section and references/flow-analysis-protocol.md)
- MUST identify if return values, types, or side effects changed
- MUST check if existing integrations will break
- MUST document the blast radius: how many callers/consumers are affected
- Validate schemas/APIs/dependencies using
matchString targeting (PR Mode: githubGetFileContent; Local Mode: localGetFileContent + localSearchCode)
- Assess impact per domain (prioritize user-specified areas from Phase 3):
- Architectural: System structure, pattern alignment
- Integration: Affected systems, integration patterns
- Risk: Race conditions, performance, security
- Business: User experience, metrics, operational costs
- Cascade Effect: Could this lead to other problems?
- Identify edge cases in changed logic
- Security scan: injection, XSS, data exposure, regulatory compliance
- Scan for TODO/FIXME comments in new code ('+' lines only)
- For high-risk changes: Assess rollback strategy/feature flag needs
- Preflight suggestion (Local Mode only): If changes are substantial, suggest running the project's test/lint suite before finalizing the review
Gate Check
FORBIDDEN
- Analyzing areas user explicitly excluded in Phase 3
- Skipping flow impact analysis for function/method changes
- Ignoring guidelines loaded in Phase 1
- Local Mode: Using
github* tools for code reading (MUST use local* + lsp*)
- Local Mode: Guessing
lineHint without calling localSearchCode first
- File Scope: Expanding analysis beyond the target file + immediate dependencies without user request
- File Scope: Spawning parallel agents (single-pass review only)
ALLOWED
- PR Mode: All Octocode MCP tools (github*, local*, lsp*)
- Local Mode: Octocode MCP
local* + lsp* tools + shell git commands
- Both: Spawning parallel agents via
Task for large change sets (see Multi-Agent section)
On Failure
- IF search returns no results → THEN broaden query, try synonym, or change tool
- IF flow tracing hits dead end → THEN document limitation, proceed with available evidence
- IF LSP tool fails (Local Mode) → THEN fall back to
localSearchCode pattern matching
</analysis_gate>
Phase 5 + Phase 6 (Optional Detail)
Keep Finalize/Report details in the lifecycle reference to keep the base skill focused:
Base expectation in this SKILL:
- After Phase 4, finalize only high-impact evidence-backed findings
- Present concise recommendation and ask before writing any review document
Multi-Agent Parallelization & Swarm Strategy
<parallel_execution>
Full agent definitions, prompt templates, scaling rules, and merge protocol: references/parallel-agent-protocol.md
Quick Rule: ≤5 files = single-pass (no agents). >5 files in Full mode = MUST use parallel agents.
Applies to BOTH PR Mode and Local Mode. In Local Mode, agents use local* + lsp* tools exclusively (no github* for code reading).
Agents (spawn in Phase 4, ALL in a SINGLE message):
- Agent A: Flow Impact — traces callers/consumers of modified symbols (uses
lspCallHierarchy + lspFindReferences in Local Mode)
- Agent B: Security & Error Handling — scans for vulnerabilities and swallowed exceptions
- Agent C: Architecture & Code Quality — patterns, coupling, performance
- Agent D: Guidelines & Duplicates — compliance + DRY (only if guidelines loaded)
Scaling: 2 agents (6-15 files) → 3 agents (16-30 files) → 4 agents (30+ files). See reference for full matrix.
Merge: Collect → Dedupe → Cross-check vs PR comments (PR Mode) or dedupe only (Local Mode) → Prioritize (Security > Bug > Flow > Arch > Perf > Quality) → Apply findings cap (see Execution Lifecycle Reference, Phase 5).
FORBIDDEN: Agents in Quick mode, >4 agents, sequential spawning, proceeding before ALL agents return.
</parallel_execution>
Output Protocol
Full report template and format specification: references/output-template.md
<output_structure>
Template sections: Executive Summary (goal, risk, recommendation) → Ratings (correctness, security, performance, maintainability) → PR/Changes Health → Guidelines Compliance → Issues (High/Medium/Low with file:line + diff fix) → Flow Impact Analysis
Each finding MUST have: Location (file:line), Confidence (HIGH/MED), Problem description, Code fix (diff format)
Finding Labels
- FORBIDDEN: Using
#1, #2, or any #<number> notation to label or reference findings anywhere in the output. GitHub auto-links #N to issues and pull requests, creating broken or misleading cross-links in PR comments.
- Use plain numbering (
1., 2.), lettered labels (A, B), or descriptive category IDs (e.g., [SEC-1], [BUG-1], [ARCH-1]) instead.
- This applies to headings, inline references, summary lists, and any other mention of finding identifiers.
</output_structure>
References
Verification Checklist
Use the full checklist from:
<verification_base>
