onex-pr-review

name	onex-pr-review
description	Use this skill when reviewing a pull request for merge readiness. The goal is to produce a priority-organized assessment that clearly communicates what must be fixed before merge.
disable-model-invocation	true

onex-pr-review

Use this skill when reviewing a pull request for merge readiness. The goal is to produce a priority-organized assessment that clearly communicates what must be fixed before merge.

Purpose

Systematically review all PR changes, classify issues by severity, and produce a merge readiness verdict. This ensures consistent review standards and prevents critical issues from reaching production.

Prerequisites

• A PR number, branch with open changes, or a pasted diff / list of files to review
• Optional: gh CLI for gh pr view when you are working against GitHub; if unavailable, use local git diff / Cursor diffs instead

Workflow

1. Fetch PR context. Run gh pr view <number> --json title,body,files,reviews,comments to gather the full picture. Read the changed files locally to understand the actual diff.

2. Review each changed file. For every modified file, check for: correctness, security issues, performance regressions, missing tests, breaking API changes, and code quality.

3. Classify findings by priority. Assign each finding exactly one severity level:

   • CRITICAL — Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, crashes, breaking changes. Must fix before merge.
   • MAJOR — Performance problems, incorrect behavior, missing tests, significant quality issues. Should fix before merge.
   • MINOR — Code quality improvements, missing docs, edge cases, non-critical refactoring. Should address but not blocking.
   • NIT — Formatting, naming, minor style suggestions. Optional — can merge with nits remaining.

4. Assess merge readiness. The PR is merge-ready only when all CRITICAL, MAJOR, and MINOR issues are resolved. NITs do not block merge.

5. Write the review summary. Output a priority breakdown table, merge readiness verdict, and each finding grouped by severity with file path and description.

Expected Output Format

A structured review containing:

• Priority breakdown table (count per severity level)
• Merge readiness verdict (ready / not ready)
• Findings grouped by severity (CRITICAL first, then MAJOR, MINOR, NIT)
• Each finding includes: file path, description, and suggested fix

Quality Checklist

• All changed files were reviewed
• Findings use exactly one of CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR / NIT
• Merge readiness verdict is stated explicitly
• CRITICAL and MAJOR findings include a suggested fix
• No findings are left unclassified