pr-pre-push-review

name	pr-pre-push-review
description	Review a proposed benchmark PR before pushing. Checks that the code looks natural, the intentional issue is present but not obvious, and there are no accidental giveaways. Run as a sub-agent with clean context.

PR Pre-Push Review

Purpose

Quality-check a benchmark PR's code before it goes to the review bots. The reviewer sub-agent should have NO knowledge of the benchmark - it should review the code as if it were a normal colleague reviewing a feature PR.

How to Use

1. Read the expectations file for the PR (e.g. pr-expectations/pr-03-missing-auth.md).
2. Read all changed/new files that will be in the PR.
3. Launch a sub-agent with a CLEAN context using the prompt template below. Do NOT mention the benchmark, the expectations, or what we are testing. The sub-agent should just be a Convex code reviewer.
4. Compare the sub-agent's findings against the expectations file.
5. Report back: does the PR look natural? Did the sub-agent spot the intended issue? Are there any accidental problems that could distract the review bots?

Sub-agent Prompt Template

Use this template, filling in the placeholders:

---

You are an experienced Convex developer reviewing a pull request for a team task management app.

The app uses:

• Convex backend with React + Vite frontend
• Convex Auth (password-based)
• Tables: users, projects, projectMembers, tasks, comments, activityLog, labels, taskLabels

The PR adds the following new file(s):

{paste the full file contents here}

For context, here are the existing patterns in the codebase:

{paste 1-2 representative existing files that show the correct pattern, e.g. tasks.ts for auth patterns}

Please review this PR as you would in a normal code review. Focus on:

1. Security issues (auth, access control, data exposure)
2. Performance concerns (Convex-specific: indexes, .collect(), read limits)
3. Correctness (does it do what it claims?)
4. Consistency with existing codebase patterns

Be specific. Quote the problematic lines. Suggest fixes where appropriate.

---

Evaluation Checklist (done by the parent agent AFTER the sub-agent returns)

• Natural appearance: Does the code look like a plausible feature addition? Would a human developer write this?
• Intended issue present: Is the bug/anti-pattern we want to test actually in the code?
• No benchmark giveaways: No comments, variable names, or patterns that hint at testing
• No accidental issues: Are there other bugs that would distract the review bots from the intended finding?
• Consistent style: Does the code match the rest of the codebase (imports, formatting, patterns)?
• Cover story holds up: Does the PR title/description match the code without revealing intent?

Output Format

Report findings as:

## Pre-Push Review: PR #NN - <name>

### Sub-agent Findings
<summary of what the clean reviewer found>

### Checklist
- [x] or [ ] for each item above

### Verdict
READY TO PUSH / NEEDS CHANGES

### Notes
<any changes needed before pushing>