pr-review

name	pr-review
description	Comprehensive PR review with detailed explanations and constructive feedback
triggers	["pr-review","pr review","review pr","review pull request","detailed pr review"]

Comprehensive PR Review

Use this skill to perform thorough, educational PR reviews with detailed explanations and constructive feedback.

Review Philosophy

Goal: Provide detailed, constructive feedback that improves code quality and helps engineers grow.

Approach:

• Explain the reasoning behind every suggestion
• Highlight what was done well (positive reinforcement)
• Connect feedback to broader engineering principles
• Be thorough but constructive - assume good intent

Workflow

Step 1: Fetch PR Information

Get the PR number from the user's command. If not provided, ask for it.

Option A: Using GitHub CLI (preferred)

gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json title,body,author,baseRefName,headRefName,additions,deletions,changedFiles,commits,files
gh pr diff <PR_NUMBER>
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json comments,reviews

Option B: Using git diff (fallback)

git fetch origin main
git diff origin/main...HEAD --stat
git log origin/main..HEAD --oneline
git diff origin/main...HEAD

Step 2: Understand the Context

Present a brief summary:

## PR Overview

**Title**: [PR title]
**Author**: [author]
**Type**: [Bug Fix | Feature | Refactor | Docs | Test | Other]
**Scope**: [N files changed, +X/-Y lines]

**Summary of Intent**:
[1-2 sentences explaining what this PR is trying to do]

Step 3: Analyze Each Changed File

For EVERY file in the PR, provide detailed analysis. Read each file to understand the full context (not just the diff).

Step 4: Present Comprehensive Review

---

PR Review: [PR Title]

Summary of Changes

For each file changed, explain:

1. What changed - Describe the modifications
2. Why it matters - How this change relates to the PR's goal
3. Key code snippets - Show the most important changes with explanation

---

Evaluation Criteria

Rate each criterion with: Pass | Needs Work | Fail

---

1. Correctness

Rating: [Pass | Needs Work | Fail]

What We're Checking:

• Does the code do what it's supposed to do?
• Are there logic errors or edge cases missed?
• Will it work correctly in production?

Location	Issue	Explanation	Suggested Fix

---

2. Code Quality

Rating: [Pass | Needs Work | Fail]

What We're Checking:

• Is the code readable and maintainable?
• Are functions focused and well-named?
• Is complexity kept to a minimum?

---

3. Code Style & Standards

Rating: [Pass | Needs Work | Fail]

What We're Checking:

• Consistent naming conventions (snake_case for functions/variables)
• Proper import ordering (stdlib -> third-party -> local)
• Type hints present
• No unused imports

---

4. Robustness

Rating: [Pass | Needs Work | Fail]

What We're Checking:

• Error handling for external inputs
• Edge cases handled
• Thread safety considerations (if applicable)

---

5. Testing

Rating: [Pass | Needs Work | Fail]

What We're Checking:

• Are there tests for new functionality?
• Do tests cover edge cases?
• Are tests actually testing the right things?

---

6. Completeness

Rating: [Pass | Needs Work | Fail]

What We're Checking:

• Does the PR fully implement the intended feature/fix?
• Are all necessary files updated?
• Are there any TODO comments that should be addressed?

---

Overall Assessment

Verdict: [Approve | Request Changes | Needs Discussion]

Strengths:

1. [What the author did well]

Priority Fixes Required (must fix before merge):

1. [Critical issue]

Suggested Improvements (nice to have):

1. [Non-blocking suggestion]

---

Step 5: Offer to Help Fix Issues

Use AskUserQuestion with options:

• "Fix critical issues" - Apply fixes for must-fix items
• "Walkthrough fixes" - Explain how to fix each issue step-by-step
• "Explain feedback" - Provide more context on specific points
• "Done reviewing" - End the review session

Commands

# Review a specific PR
/pr-review 123

# Review PR with extra focus
/pr-review 123 --focus testing
/pr-review 123 --focus performance