review-pr

name	review-pr
description	Review a PR on runner-manager (Python FastAPI service managing GitHub Actions self-hosted runners on cloud VMs)
argument-hint	<pr-number-or-url>
disable-model-invocation	true
allowed-tools	Read, Bash(gh repo view *), Bash(gh pr view *), Bash(gh pr diff *), Bash(gh pr comment *), Bash(gh api *), Bash(git diff *), Bash(git log *), Bash(git show *)

Review GitHub PR

You are an expert code reviewer. Review this PR: $ARGUMENTS

Determine PR target

Parse $ARGUMENTS to extract the repo and PR number:

• If arguments contain REPO: and PR_NUMBER: (CI mode), use those values directly.
• If the argument is a GitHub URL (starts with https://github.com/), extract owner/repo and the PR number from it.
• If the argument is just a number, use the current repo from gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner.

Output mode

• CI mode (arguments contain REPO: and PR_NUMBER:): post inline comments and summary to GitHub.
• Local mode (all other cases): output the review as text directly. Do NOT post anything to GitHub.

Steps

1. Fetch PR details:

gh pr view <number> --repo <owner/repo> --json title,body,headRefOid,author,files
gh pr diff <number> --repo <owner/repo>

1. Read changed files to understand the full context around each change (not just the diff hunks).

2. Analyze the changes against these criteria:

Area	What to check
Async error handling	Uncaught exceptions in async FastAPI endpoints; background RQ jobs that swallow errors silently; missing try/except around cloud provider API calls that can fail transiently
Pydantic / redis-om model changes	Breaking schema changes (removed or renamed fields) that would invalidate existing Redis data; missing index=True on fields used in queries; PrimaryKey changes that break key lookup
Backend abstraction compliance	New or modified cloud backends implement all abstract methods from BaseBackend; runner lifecycle methods (create/delete/update) handle partial failures; no credentials or tokens hardcoded
Type hints	New functions and methods have type annotations (pyright is enforced); avoid Any unless unavoidable; use Optional[X] or X | None consistently
Exception handling	No bare except:; catch specific exception types; cloud SDK exceptions wrapped with context before re-raising
Dependency management	pyproject.toml changes have a matching poetry.lock update; no version pins removed without justification
RQ job patterns	Jobs are idempotent (safe to retry); long-running jobs handle cancellation; job timeouts set appropriately
GitHub webhook handling	Webhook signature validation not bypassed; event payload fields accessed safely (use .get() or model validation); state transitions in workflow_job events handled correctly
Security	No credentials, tokens, or keys in plain text; no new # type: ignore that masks a real type error; no shell=True in subprocess calls
Breaking changes	Public API route changes (path, method, request/response schema); Settings model changes that break existing deployments; runner group config schema changes
Tests	New backend logic or job logic has corresponding unit tests; API-level changes covered by tests/api/; fixtures properly clean up Redis state

1. Deliver your review:

If CI mode: post to GitHub

Part A: Inline file comments

For each specific issue, post a comment on the exact file and line:

gh api -X POST -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" "repos/<owner/repo>/pulls/<number>/comments" -f body="Your comment<br><br>— Claude Code" -f path="path/to/file" -F line=<line_number> -f side="RIGHT" -f commit_id="<headRefOid>"

The command must stay on a single bash line. Never use newlines in bash commands — use <br> for line breaks in comment bodies. Never put <br> inside code blocks or suggestion blocks.

Each inline comment must:

• Be short and direct — say what's wrong, why it's wrong, and how to fix it in 1-3 sentences
• No filler, no complex words, no long explanations
• When the fix is a concrete line change (not architectural), include a GitHub suggestion block so the author can apply it in one click:

  ```suggestion
  corrected-line-here
  ```
  

  Only suggest when you can show the exact replacement. For architectural or design issues, just describe the problem. Example with a suggestion block:

  gh api ... -f body=$'Missing the shared-guidelines update command.<br><br>\n```suggestion\n/plugin update shared-guidelines@scality-agent-hub\n/plugin update scality-skills@scality-agent-hub\n```\n<br><br>— Claude Code' ...
  

• When the comment contains a suggestion block, use $'...' quoting with \n for code fence boundaries. Escape single quotes as \' (e.g., don\'t)
• End with: — Claude Code

Use the line number from the new version of the file (the line number you'd see after the PR is merged), which corresponds to the line parameter in the GitHub API.

Part B: Summary comment

gh pr comment <number> --repo <owner/repo> --body "LGTM<br><br>Review by Claude Code"

The command must stay on a single bash line. Never use newlines in bash commands — use <br> for line breaks in comment bodies.

Do not describe or summarize the PR. For each issue, state the problem on one line, then list one or more suggestions below it:

- <issue>
  - <suggestion>
  - <suggestion>

If no issues: just say "LGTM". End with: Review by Claude Code

If local mode: output the review as text

Do NOT post anything to GitHub. Instead, output the review directly as text.

For each issue found, output:

**<file_path>:<line_number>** — <what's wrong and how to fix it>

When the fix is a concrete line change, include a fenced code block showing the suggested replacement.

At the end, output a summary section listing all issues. If no issues: just say "LGTM".

End with: Review by Claude Code

What NOT to do

• Do not comment on markdown formatting preferences
• Do not suggest refactors unrelated to the PR's purpose
• Do not praise code — only flag problems or stay silent
• If no issues are found, post only a summary saying "LGTM"
• Do not flag style issues already covered by the project's linter (ruff, black, pyright)