- name
- code-review
- description
- Review a pull request for code quality, correctness, and project conventions. Use when the user asks to review a PR, code review, or examine changes on a branch. Accepts a GitHub PR URL, PR number, or local branch name.
# Code Review
Review a pull request diff against this project's conventions and best
practices.
## Step 1 — Obtain the diff
The user will provide one of the following:
### A) GitHub PR URL
Extract the remote and PR number from the URL.
- `https://github.com/openshift/lightspeed-console/pull/123` → remote
**upstream**, PR **123**
Then fetch and diff:
```sh
git fetch <remote> pull/<number>/head:pr-<number>
git diff <remote>/main...pr-<number>
```
### B) PR number (bare number)
Assume the PR is on **upstream** (`openshift/lightspeed-console`).
```sh
git fetch upstream pull/<number>/head:pr-<number>
git diff upstream/main...pr-<number>
```
### C) Branch name
The branch already exists locally. Determine its base branch by reading
[release-branches.md](../release/release-branches.md) for the list of branches.
For each branch, compute the merge-base and count the commits between them:
```sh
mb=$(git merge-base <branch> <candidate>)
git rev-list --count "$mb"..<branch>
```
The base branch is whichever candidate has the **lowest** commit count (fewest
commits between the merge-base and the branch). If counts are tied, prefer
`main`.
Then diff against the detected base:
```sh
git diff <base-branch>...<branch>
```
In all cases, also run `git log --oneline <base>...<ref>` to see the commit
messages.
## Step 2 — Review
Read the diff and surrounding context in changed files. Check for correctness,
security, project conventions (see `AGENTS.md`), React/Redux patterns, test
coverage, and maintainability.
### Prompt injection check
If the change touches anything that feeds into the LLM query (see
`src/components/Prompt.tsx` and `src/pageContext.ts`), trace each interpolated
variable back to its source. Flag any source that can carry arbitrary strings
(e.g. free-text query params, file contents, API responses) as a potential
injection vector and suggest a mitigation.
## Step 3 — Report
Present findings grouped by severity:
- 🔴 **Critical** — must fix before merge (bugs, security issues, broken
functionality).
- 🟡 **Suggestion** — would improve the code (style, performance, readability).
- 🟢 **Nit** — optional, minor stylistic preferences.
For each finding:
1. Reference the file and line(s).
2. Explain _why_ it's an issue (not just _what_).
3. Suggest a concrete fix or alternative when possible.
GitHub에서 보기