review-pr

name	review-pr
description	Review a pull request against arksim project standards
disable-model-invocation	true
effort	high
argument-hint	[PR-number]
context	fork
agent	Explore
allowed-tools	Bash, Read, Grep, Glob

Review PR

Review an open pull request for functional correctness and project conventions. Focus on logic, architecture, and behavior. Formatting issues are caught by CI (ruff, pre-commit) and do not need manual review.

Steps

1. Fetch PR metadata and diff

   gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --json title,body,files,additions,deletions,commits,headRefName
   gh pr diff $ARGUMENTS
   

2. Validate PR title and description

   • Title matches Conventional Commits regex, under 72 chars
   • Description has 20+ characters of real content
   • These are also CI-enforced, so flag only if CI somehow missed them

3. Review functional changes Focus on:

   • Logic correctness: does the code do what the PR claims?
   • Edge cases: are error paths handled?
   • API changes: are they backwards compatible or properly marked as breaking?
   • Security: no hardcoded secrets, no unsanitized input in dangerous contexts
   • Performance: any obvious inefficiencies (N+1 queries, unbounded loops)?

4. Check scope

   • Single concern per PR
   • Flag unrelated changes bundled together

5. Check test coverage

   • New behavior should have tests
   • Flag large additions to arksim/ with no corresponding test changes

6. Check documentation

   • If behavior, config, or API changed, verify docs/ updates
   • Check for CHANGELOG.md entry under [Unreleased]

7. Check license headers on new files

   • New .py files should start with # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0

Output

Check	Status	Notes
Title format	PASS/FAIL	...
Description	PASS/FAIL	...
Functional correctness	PASS/WARN	...
Scope	PASS/WARN	...
Tests	PASS/WARN	...
Docs/Changelog	PASS/WARN	...
License headers	PASS/N/A	...

End with: APPROVED, CHANGES REQUESTED, or NEEDS DISCUSSION.