lean-pr-review

name	lean-pr-review
description	Review a pull request using Lean waste categories and structured severity ratings
compatibility	>=1.4

Lean PR Review

Skill metadata: version "1.1"; license MIT; tags [review, pull-request, lean, kaizen, code-review]; compatibility ">=1.4"; recommended tools [codebase, githubRepo].

Perform a structured pull request review using §5 Review Mode conventions and §6 waste categories.

When to use

• The user asks to "review this PR", "review these changes", or "check my diff"
• The Review agent hands off a PR-scoped review task
• A pull request needs a quality gate before merge

When NOT to use

• The user wants a full architectural review (use Review Mode directly with the full codebase)
• The changes are a single-line typo fix (overkill — just approve)

Steps

1. Get the diff — Read the PR diff or the set of changed files. If working locally, use git diff main...HEAD or the equivalent for the target branch.

2. Scan each changed file — For every file in the diff, read the full file (not just the diff hunk) to understand context.

3. Classify each finding — For every issue found, record:

   [severity] | [file:line] | [waste category] | [description]
   

   Severity levels:

   • critical — blocks merge; security flaw, data loss risk, or broken functionality
   • major — should fix before merge; logic error, missing test, or significant smell
   • minor — nice to fix; style issue, naming, minor inefficiency
   • advisory — informational; suggestion for future improvement

   Waste categories (§6) — full list W1–W16; most common in PR review:

   Code	Name	Typical PR signal
   W1	Overproduction	Dead code, unused exports, features not yet needed
   W2	Waiting	Blocking sync calls, missing timeouts
   W3	Transport	Unnecessary data copying, prop drilling 3+ levels
   W4	Over-processing	Abstraction for its own sake, premature generalisation
   W5	Inventory	Large WIP; changes that could be split into smaller PRs
   W6	Motion	Logic scattered across many files without justification
   W7	Defects	Bugs, type errors, missing error handling, test failures
   W8	Unused talent	Missing tests, missing automation, repetitive manual patterns
   W11	Hallucination rework	Phantom API usage, methods that don't exist, incorrect assumptions
   W14	Model-task mismatch	Overly complex solution to a trivial problem

   For W9–W10, W12–W13, W15–W16 definitions, see §6 of .github/copilot-instructions.md.

4. Check test coverage — Verify that new or changed behaviour has corresponding tests. Flag untested paths as major | W7 Defects.

5. Check for baseline breaches — Compare against §2 baselines:

   • File LOC limits (warn / hard)
   • Dependency budget (if deps were added)
   • Type errors (must be zero)

6. Produce the report — Format as:

   ## PR Review — <PR title or branch name>
   
   ### Summary
   <1–2 sentence overview of the changes and their quality>
   
   ### Findings (<N> total: <critical> critical, <major> major, <minor> minor, <advisory> advisory)
   
   #### Critical
   - [critical] | [file:line] | [W7] | <description>
   
   #### Major
   - [major] | [file:line] | [W4] | <description>
   
   #### Minor
   - [minor] | [file:line] | [W1] | <description>
   
   #### Advisory
   - [advisory] | [file:line] | [W8] | <description>
   
   ### Verdict
   <APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / COMMENT>
   

7. Wait — Do not apply fixes. Present the report and wait for the user to decide what to address.

Verify

• Every finding has all four fields: severity, file:line, waste category, description
• Critical findings are genuinely blocking (not inflated)
• Test coverage was checked for all new behaviour
• Baseline breaches are flagged
• Report ends with a clear verdict