pr-review

---

name: pr-review description: Review a community pull request against Print Farm Manager's specific failure modes: adjacent-code drift, part-count integrity, driver contract compliance, docs completeness. Use for any GitHub PR from an outside contributor. Takes a PR number as argument.

Review a Community PR

The repo is public and gets real PRs from strangers and regulars. Review them against this repo's rules, not generic lint taste. The standing lesson: the worst bug a community PR ever nearly shipped was NOT in the diff. It was adjacent code the diff made stale (a hardcoded restore column list that silently dropped serial_number, loaded_material, loaded_color after export gained them). Review the neighborhood, not just the diff.

Phase 1: Context

1. gh pr view <number> and gh pr diff <number>. Read the description, linked issues, and any prior review threads (gh pr view <number> --comments). Do not repeat findings another reviewer already raised; build on them.
2. gh pr checkout <number> so you can run and grep the real tree.
3. Identify what kind of PR it is: driver/connector, server logic, client UI, docs, CI, dependency bump. That selects the deep-dive lists below.
4. Check CI state (gh pr checks <number>). The test job gates everything; a red suite is an automatic changes-requested.

Phase 2: Baseline checks (every PR)

• Conventions: synchronous better-sqlite3 (no await on DB calls), epoch-ms timestamps, INTEGER booleans, route factory pattern, COALESCE partial updates, static routes before /:id, error shape { error: '...' } with correct 400/404/409.
• Windows safety: path.join, no bash-only assumptions, split(/[\\/]/) when parsing stored filepaths.
• Schema: any migration must be additive (try/catch ALTER TABLE in db.js). Anything destructive or framework-shaped is changes-requested.
• Tests: npm test locally on the checked-out branch. Then read the new tests and ask: do they seed and assert the NEW tables/fields/behavior, or do they only re-assert what already passed? A test that cannot fail is a finding.
• Docs: component doc updated, dated CHANGELOG entry present in house format. Missing docs is a real finding, not a nitpick (CONTRIBUTING.md requires them).
• New prose dash check on added lines only: gh pr diff <number> | grep -Pn '^\+.*[\x{2013}\x{2014}]'
• Security (repo is public, app is LAN-only by design): no secrets or real access codes in code, tests, or fixtures; file endpoints validate paths (no traversal); nothing that adds cloud calls or telemetry.
• Dependencies: any new dependency needs strong justification; native modules must build on Windows under Node 22/23.

Phase 3: Adjacent-code audit

For every file the diff touches, open the WHOLE file and its counterpart in the sync-pairs table (CLAUDE.md "Sync pairs"). Ask: does this change make any unchanged code stale?

Specific known traps:

• server/routes/backup.js: export and restore must handle the same tables and columns. Column lists must derive from the live schema, never hardcoded.
• scheduler.js eligibility SQL vs routes/parts.js dispatch-status: the diagnostic must mirror dispatch reality.
• Driver registration: a new brand must hit all six touchpoints (driver file, drivers/index.js, models.js VALID_CONNECTORS, printers.js NO_API_KEY_TYPES if keyless, Settings.jsx brand spots, db.js migration if new fields).
• Duplicated derived-status logic ("awaiting sign-off") across Dashboard/Fleet/Printers: a change to one copy needs all three.

Phase 4: Deep dives by PR type

Anything touching jobs, parts, scheduler, set-ready, or backup restore:

• Trace every path that writes parts.completed_qty. For each: what unique real-world event backs it? Can it fire twice across a server restart, a Bambu MQTT reconnect, or an OFFLINE-to-FINISHED flap? Recovery paths must gate on process lifetime (finished_at > scheduler.startedAt), never wall-clock windows. Any doubt here is a P1.
• Check hold semantics: nothing may clear is_held except operator endpoints and the documented recovered-to-PRINTING path.

Driver PRs, additionally:

• Full contract check against docs/driver-authoring.md: four functions, getStatus never throws (OFFLINE on error), canonical statuses only, cancel maps to STOPPED not ERROR, UPLOAD_CONFLICT code, no DB access in the driver, module-level Map for persistent state.
• Payloads verified against the official protocol docs (fetch them; do not trust the PR's claims about field formats).
• Hardware evidence: the PR must state what real hardware it was tested on. Mock-only drivers can merge but must be labeled community-maintained/unvalidated in docs, per driver-authoring.md.

Client PRs, additionally:

• useToast/useConfirm rules (elements rendered, no window.confirm/alert), background-poll errors swallowed vs mutation errors toasted, refetch-after-mutate, palette hexes copied not invented, 600 px breakpoint respected, npm run build passes.

Dependency-bump PRs (including Dependabot):

• Read the changelog of the bumped package for breaking changes in the used API surface. Confirm lockfile consistency and that npm ci && npm test passes. Never recommend enabling auto-merge.

Phase 5: Verdict and delivery

1. Rank findings by severity, house style: [P1] correctness/data-loss/security (blocks merge), [P2] should fix before or shortly after merge, then minor notes. For each finding: file, line, what breaks, and a concrete failure scenario ("restore a backup taken after this PR and loaded_color comes back NULL").
2. Verify each P1 by actually exercising the code where feasible (run the test, hit the route with curl against a dev server, or write a quick throwaway test) rather than reasoning from the diff alone.
3. Deliver as Joel directs: default is a summary to him with a recommended verdict (approve / approve-with-nits / request-changes). Only post to GitHub (gh pr review) when he asks.
4. Merge mechanics to remember:
   • docs/CHANGELOG.md prepend conflicts: .gitattributes has merge=union for it, but GitHub's server-side merge IGNORES that. Resolve locally and push back to the PR branch (regulars leave "allow maintainer edits" on).
   • Squash-merge titles should follow the type(scope): summary convention.
5. If the PR is good work, say so specifically. Community goodwill is an asset; regulars like seanlw follow the conventions and deserve fast, substantive reviews.