pr-review

name	pr-review
description	Deep-dive review of any GitHub PR in tetherto/qvac. Validates gitflow, CI, title/body format, code quality, security, and applicable repo rules. Posts a PENDING review with inline comments. Use when reviewing a PR, given a PR link, or invoking /pr-review.
disable-model-invocation	true

PR Review

Manual-trigger PR review for any GitHub PR in tetherto/qvac. Produces:

1. A short overview in chat (for the user — not posted anywhere).
2. A PENDING GitHub review containing only per-file:line inline comments (no review body).

The user submits the pending review manually from the GitHub UI.

When to use this skill

Use when:

• User asks to review a PR or provides a PR URL
• User invokes /pr-review
• Triggered as follow-up from /sdk-pr-status, /sdk-pr-my, or another pod's status/my skill

The skill applies to any PR; cursor rules and PR-template format applicable to the touched paths are discovered dynamically (see step 4 / step 5).

Inputs

• Required: PR URL (e.g. https://github.com/tetherto/qvac/pull/1234)
• Optional: user-provided notes/comments to seed the review (focus areas, specific concerns)

If PR URL is missing, ask for it. Nothing else to ask unless the user's seed notes are ambiguous.

Review philosophy

Carefully check the changes, focusing on:

1. High-risk issues — bugs that corrupt data, break security/auth, violate gitflow, or fail CI.
2. Potential bugs — logic errors, wrong types, missing error handling, race conditions, off-by-one, unhandled edge cases.
3. Unintentional or non-obvious caveats — subtle behavior changes that aren't called out (default flips, silent fallbacks, ordering changes, hidden coupling, regex gaps, schema gaps).
4. Breaks to existing functionality — changes that look additive but alter behavior of existing callers (signature changes, default changes, removed branches, semantically different return values).

Style nits, doc polish, and unverified hunches are NOT the focus. Don't pad the review with them.

Severity tiers

Use these tiers when assembling findings. Tiers drive what surfaces in the chat overview and what is proposed for inline comments. The user always has final say over what gets posted.

• High — almost-certain bug, security issue, gitflow blocker, CI failure, or break of existing behavior. Surfaces in chat overview. Proposed for inline by default.
• Medium — likely bug, non-obvious caveat, missing test coverage on a risky path, or a subtle behavior change. Surfaces in chat overview. Proposed for inline by default.
• Low — style, minor docstring drift, optional ergonomic improvement. Surfaces in chat overview when material (informative for the reviewer). Not proposed for inline by default — only added if the user explicitly opts them in.

Selection rule: never silently include a Low finding in the inline payload. The user picks (see step 7b).

Safety rules — DO NOT TOUCH THE USER'S LOCAL REPO

This skill is read-only with respect to the user's local working tree. The user may have uncommitted changes, be on a feature branch, or have pending work — never disturb it.

Forbidden commands (no matter the circumstance):

• git switch, git checkout (any ref/file)
• git reset (any mode), git restore
• git stash (push, pop, drop, anything)
• git pull, git merge, git rebase, git cherry-pick
• git clean
• gh pr checkout
• Any write to files inside the user's working tree

Worktree mode carve-out

/pr-review runs by default in worktree mode (see step 0a). The dedicated cache directory at ~/.cache/qvac-pr-review/ is fully isolated from the user's working tree — it lives outside the repo entirely. Inside that cache directory only, the shared script (worktree-prepare.mjs) is allowed to:

• git fetch <remote> "pull/<n>/head:refs/pr/<n>/head"
• git worktree add --detach <cache-path> refs/pr/<n>/head
• git -C <cache-path> reset --hard refs/pr/<n>/head (when SHA drifted)
• git -C <cache-path> reset --hard HEAD (when the cached worktree is dirty at the same SHA)
• git -C <cache-path> clean -fdx (only after SHA drift, to evict stale untracked build/test artifacts)
• git worktree remove --force <cache-path> and git worktree prune
• Read-only diagnostics: git -C <cache-path> rev-parse|log|show|diff|status

These run from the script, not from the agent. The agent itself MUST NOT run any of the forbidden commands above — including inside the cache path. The agent only Reads/Greps/Globs source files in the cache path and never writes to them during /pr-review.

The same cache path is also used by /pr-test, so it may contain untracked build/test artifacts such as node_modules, dist, native build/ directories, or logs. Those artifacts are ignored by /pr-review; the patch is computed from committed refs (<BASE_REF>...HEAD), not from the worktree's unstaged or untracked state.

File access rules

If you need PR file contents:

• Worktree mode (default): Read/Grep/Glob files at the path printed by step 0a (<cache-path>/...). The path is at the PR head SHA.
• Fallback (or --no-worktree): gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/contents/{path}?ref={sha} and write to /tmp/.

Read cursor rules and repo conventions from the user's current workspace as-is — do not switch branches to "get the latest" version.

Efficiency rules

Every shell call costs a user approval. Keep the total small (~5-8 calls).

• Use dedicated tools, not shell. Read instead of cat/head/tail, Grep instead of grep/rg, Glob instead of find, Write instead of echo > / heredoc.
• Do not gh pr checkout. Use worktree mode (default, see step 0a) for full local context at the PR head SHA. The cache lives under ~/.cache/qvac-pr-review/ and never touches the user's working tree.
• Fetch each piece of data ONCE. Save PR JSON / patch to /tmp/pr-<num>.json and /tmp/pr-<num>.patch, reuse via Read/Grep. The worktree path is reused across step calls; don't re-prepare it.
• Skip gh pr checks — statusCheckRollup in gh pr view --json already has every check.
• Fetch CI logs only for failing jobs, not every job. One gh run view --log-failed --job <id> per failing job.
• Never run encoding forensics (file, od, wc -c, cat -A) unless a CI log explicitly names an encoding issue.

Workflow

Copy this checklist and track progress:

- [ ] 0a. Prepare worktree (default-on; skip if user passed --no-worktree)
- [ ] 1. Parse PR URL
- [ ] 2. Fetch PR data (2 shell calls)
- [ ] 3. Validate gitflow
- [ ] 4. Read applicable cursor rules for the touched paths
- [ ] 5. Validate PR title + body against the discovered format rules
- [ ] 6. Review: CI + general + security + rules — classify findings by severity
- [ ] 7a. Print risk overview in chat (high + medium + material lows)
- [ ] 7b. Ask user which findings to include as inline comments (high+medium pre-selected, lows opt-in)
- [ ] 8. Assemble inline comments + write payload (only the user-confirmed set)
- [ ] 9. Pre-flight check (count, files, line numbers)
- [ ] 10. Show gh api command, wait for user confirmation
- [ ] 11. POST the PENDING review
- [ ] 12. Output link to pending review

0a. Prepare worktree (default-on)

Worktree mode is the default — full local Read/Grep/Glob context at the PR head SHA, isolated under ~/.cache/qvac-pr-review/, never touches the user's working tree. The same script also fetches the PR's base ref and writes the canonical PR diff to /tmp/. Skip this step only if the user invoked /pr-review URL --no-worktree.

node .cursor/skills/_lib/pr-skills/worktree-prepare.mjs <PR-URL>

Parse the script's output:

• stdout on success has four lines:

  WORKTREE_PATH=<absolute path>
  HEAD_SHA=<sha>
  PATCH_PATH=/tmp/pr-<num>.patch
  BASE_REF=<remote>/<baseRefName>
  

  • WORKTREE_PATH: the working root for files at the PR head SHA. Use this for all Read/Grep/Glob in steps 6 and 7a.
  • PATCH_PATH: a unified diff computed locally with git diff <BASE_REF>...HEAD (3-dot). 3-dot semantics match GitHub's PR view exactly — only what the PR introduces, regardless of how far behind the base the PR is. Use this anywhere the workflow refers to the patch; do NOT use 2-dot.
  • BASE_REF: the local tracking ref the diff was computed against (e.g. upstream/main). Useful if you need to re-run a custom diff inside the worktree.

• stderr on failure has a single line:

  WORKTREE_FALLBACK=<one-line reason>
  

  The script's exit code is 0 even on failure. If you observe WORKTREE_FALLBACK, fall back to the API-only flow: fetch file contents via gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/contents/{path}?ref={headRefOid} and the patch via gh pr diff <num> --patch > /tmp/pr-<num>.patch. Surface the fallback reason once in the chat overview's ### Verified (no action) section so the user knows local context is missing — e.g. "Worktree prep failed (<reason>); excerpts come from gh api."

When the user passes --no-worktree, skip this step entirely and use the API-only flow without surfacing any fallback note.

1. Parse PR URL

Extract owner, repo, pr_number from the URL. Verify repo matches tetherto/qvac.

2. Fetch PR metadata

gh pr view <num> --repo tetherto/qvac \
  --json number,title,state,mergeable,baseRefName,headRefName,headRefOid,isCrossRepository,headRepositoryOwner,files,author,body,statusCheckRollup \
  > /tmp/pr-<num>.json

In worktree mode (default), the patch is already at /tmp/pr-<num>.patch from step 0a — do NOT re-fetch it via gh pr diff.

In --no-worktree mode (or after a WORKTREE_FALLBACK), additionally:

gh pr diff <num> --repo tetherto/qvac --patch > /tmp/pr-<num>.patch

Everything else comes from these files via Read/Grep. No additional shell calls for PR data.

3. Gitflow validation

Read baseRefName, headRefName, isCrossRepository, headRepositoryOwner from /tmp/pr-<num>.json. Full gitflow rules are in docs/gitflow.md.

Allowed directions (fork to upstream):

Head (fork branch)	Base (upstream)	OK?
anything	main	yes
anything	release-<pkg>-<x.y.z>	yes (must bump version + changelog)
anything	feature-<pkg>-* / tmp-<pkg>-*	yes

Blocker patterns:

• release-* to main — WRONG
• main to release-* — WRONG
• release-* to release-* — WRONG
• feature-* / tmp-* to main — WRONG
• main to feature-* / tmp-* — WRONG
• Head branch in upstream org (not a fork) — flag as suspicious

Release-PR extra checks (base is release-<pkg>-<x.y.z>):

• packages/<pkg>/package.json version must increase vs base
• packages/<pkg>/CHANGELOG.md must be updated
• Verify patch fixes already landed on main (cherry-picked commits)

4. Read applicable cursor rules for the touched paths

Use Glob/Read tools (no shell). The repo organizes cursor rules per area under .cursor/rules/<area>/. To pick which apply to this PR:

1. Look at the touched paths from /tmp/pr-<num>.json (files[].path).
2. Glob .cursor/rules/**/*.mdc and look at each file's frontmatter globs field. Load any rule whose globs match at least one touched path. (Many rules also have alwaysApply: true and apply regardless.)
3. If .github/teams/<pod>.json exists for a pod whose ownedPaths match the touched files, that pod's conventions are the relevant ones; load any rule under .cursor/rules/<pod>/ (e.g. main.mdc, commit-and-pr-format.mdc, error-handling.mdc, <pod>-pod-packages.mdc).

If no rules match, skip this step. Do not hardcode rule paths.

5. Validate PR title + body against discovered format rules

If a commit-and-pr-format.mdc-style rule was loaded in step 4, validate the PR title and body against it. Common shape (used by the SDK pod and likely others):

Title (format: TICKET prefix[tag]: subject or prefix[notask]: subject):

• Prefix: feat fix doc test chore infra
• Tags (not combinable): [api] [bc] [mod] [notask] [skiplog]
• [api] required when diff adds new exports/public API surface
• [bc] required when diff removes/changes existing public API signatures
• [mod] required when model constants change

Body — use the matching .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/<template>.md if one is referenced by the loaded rule:

• "What problem" describes user impact, not implementation
• "How it solves" is high-level, not line-by-line
• [bc] requires BEFORE/AFTER code blocks
• [api] requires usage example
• [mod] requires Added/Removed models list
• Unused template sections deleted

If no format rule applies, skip this step. Title/body violations go in the chat overview only, not as inline PR comments.

6. Review dimensions

Apply the review philosophy. Classify every finding as High, Medium, or Low. Skip any dimension with no findings.

• Gitflow: wrong merge direction, missing version bump/changelog on release PRs (almost always High)
• CI: non-green checks (ignore *Approval*/approval-worker). Name the failing job + actual error. For failing jobs only: gh run view --repo tetherto/qvac --log-failed --job <job_id> > /tmp/pr-<num>-<job_id>.log (High)
• Bugs / correctness: logic errors, wrong types, off-by-one, missing error handling, race conditions, unhandled edge cases (High or Medium)
• Breaks to existing functionality: changes that look additive but alter callers' behavior — signature changes, default flips, removed branches, semantically different return values (High)
• Non-obvious caveats: silent fallbacks, schema/regex gaps, validation that doesn't actually validate the property the test name implies, hidden ordering/coupling, addon contract drift (Medium)
• Security: injection, secrets in code/logs, auth/authz, unsafe deserialization, SSRF, prototype pollution, crypto misuse, dependency risks (High unless clearly informational)
• Test coverage on risky paths: a new feature or refactor that ships without tests proving the risky bit (Medium)
• Repo rules: violations of the cursor rules loaded in step 4 (Low unless they hide a bug)
• User notes: address seed notes explicitly if provided. Prioritize per the user's framing.

When verifying a suspected bug, attempt to construct a concrete reproduction (input → code path → observed behavior). If you cannot, classify it Medium at most and say so.

7a. Print risk overview in chat (BEFORE assembling comments)

Print the overview below directly in chat. This is for the user — nothing is posted yet. After printing, pause for the selection step (7b). If the user pushes back on a finding, drop it before continuing.

Important: the user's local checkout may be on a different branch / different commit than the PR head. They cannot trust line numbers from their working tree. Every High/Medium finding MUST therefore include:

1. A short code excerpt fetched from the PR head SHA (already in /tmp/pr-<num>-<file>.ts from step 6 verification, or via gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/contents/{path}?ref={headRefOid}). 3-8 lines of context max — just enough to make the bug visible without the user opening the PR.

2. A deep link to the PR file diff so the user can click straight to the right place on GitHub. GitHub PR file anchors use SHA256 of the file path (GitHub switched from MD5/SHA1 in 2022):

   https://github.com/tetherto/qvac/pull/<num>/files#diff-<sha256(path)>R<line>

   Where <sha256(path)> is sha256(<path>) (lowercase hex, no trailing newline). The R<line> suffix anchors the right (post-change) side at that line; use L<line> for the left side.

   Compute it in shell:

   printf '%s' 'packages/sdk/foo.ts' | shasum -a 256 | awk '{print $1}'
   

   Fallback when SHA256 isn't convenient: link to the blob at the head SHA — https://github.com/tetherto/qvac/blob/<headRefOid>/<path>#L<line> — also clickable and lands on the right line, but doesn't show the diff context. Prefer the diff anchor when you have it.

   Do NOT use SHA1 of the path — that produces a hash GitHub no longer recognises and the anchor will silently fail to scroll.

Format:

## PR #<num> — review overview

<1-line summary of what this PR does>

### Gitflow / Title / CI
<one-line status, omit subsections that are clean>

### High-risk
<numbered list — empty list is fine, write "none" explicitly>

1. **<short title>** — [`<path>:<line>`](<deep link>)

   <one-sentence explanation, with repro hint if relevant>

   ```ts
   <3-8 line excerpt from the PR head>
   ```

### Medium-risk
<numbered list — empty list is fine, write "none" explicitly>

1. **<short title>** — [`<path>:<line>`](<deep link>)

   <one-sentence explanation>

   ```ts
   <3-8 line excerpt from the PR head>
   ```

### Low-risk (informational)
<numbered list — omit the section entirely if there are no material lows>

1. **<short title>** — [`<path>:<line>`](<deep link>)

   <one-sentence note>

### Verified (no action)
<optional: short bullets for things you specifically checked and cleared, only if the reviewer might otherwise wonder>

---

PR diff: <https://github.com/tetherto/qvac/pull/<num>/files>

Rules for what goes in each section:

• High / Medium: every finding gets the link + 3-8 line excerpt. Keep the explanation to one sentence; excerpt does the rest. Detailed reasoning + reproduction goes in the inline comment in step 8.
• Low (informational): include only when the finding is genuinely useful to the reviewer (e.g. a doc gap, an ergonomic improvement, an addon-contract drift worth knowing). Skip the excerpt for lows — a one-sentence note + link is enough. Trivial nits (whitespace, opinion-based naming) should be dropped, not demoted to Low.
• Verified: only when the reviewer might reasonably wonder whether you checked something.

The excerpts MUST come from files at the PR head SHA, never from the user's working tree.

• Worktree mode (default): Read the file at <WORKTREE_PATH>/<path> (the worktree is checked out at the PR head SHA). Glob/Grep with the worktree path as the search root.
• Fallback / --no-worktree: fetch with gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/contents/{path}?ref=<headRefOid> (decode .content from base64) and Read from /tmp/.

The excerpt's line numbers must match the line you're calling out.

7b. Ask the user which findings to include as inline comments

Immediately after the overview, present a confirmation prompt. The defaults follow the severity tier rules (high+medium pre-selected, lows opt-in). The user can override any selection.

Use a structured multi-select question (one per finding) so the user clicks instead of typing. Format the prompt as:

For each finding, confirm whether it should be posted as an inline comment.
Defaults: High + Medium = include; Low = skip.

Each finding becomes one option in a single multi-select question (id inline_picks, allow_multiple: true). Pre-select High + Medium by listing them as the recommended choices in the prompt text (the tool itself doesn't surface defaults, so spell them out: e.g. "Recommended: 1, 2, 3"). Lows are listed as additional options.

If the user is text-driven instead of clicking, accept replies like:

• "all" / "default" / "yes" → include the recommended set (high+medium only)
• "1, 3" → include findings 1 and 3 only
• "all + L1" → recommended set plus Low #1
• "drop 2" → recommended set minus #2
• "none" → skip the inline review entirely (still allowed; just stop here)

Echo back the final selected list before moving to step 8 so the user can object once more. Do NOT proceed to step 8 until you have an explicit confirmation. If the user picks "none", skip steps 8-12 and end the session.

Comment style

• Casual but professional. No fluff.
• Bullet points over prose. Write like a human reviewer.
• No severity prefixes (blocker:, nit:, etc.) inside the comment body — severity is conveyed by which findings make it into the chat overview.
• Say WHAT + WHY + brief FIX. Use GitHub suggestion blocks only for mechanical fixes.
• For High/Medium findings, include a concrete reproduction path when one exists.
• No praise padding. No "LGTM overall but...". Land findings directly.

Posting the review

8. Write comment payload

Build the payload from the user-confirmed selection in step 7b only. Never include a finding the user did not opt into (especially Lows). If the confirmed set is empty, stop here — don't post an empty review.

Use the Write tool to create /tmp/pr-<num>-review.json:

{
  "commit_id": "<headRefOid>",
  "comments": [
    {
      "path": "packages/<pkg>/src/foo.ts",
      "line": 42,
      "body": "comment text"
    }
  ]
}

Omit the event field. The GitHub REST API only accepts APPROVE, REQUEST_CHANGES, or COMMENT; omitting it leaves the review in PENDING state, which is what this skill targets.

Line numbers must reference the post-PR file line numbers (the + side line numbers in the patch, mapped to the file at the PR head SHA). When in doubt, fetch the file at the head SHA via gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/contents/{path}?ref={sha} and verify line numbers there before composing the payload.

9. Pre-flight check

Show the user:

1. Count of inline comments and which files they touch. Cross-reference against the user-confirmed selection from step 7b — counts MUST match exactly. If they don't, something was added or dropped silently; stop and reconcile before proceeding.

2. A rendered Markdown preview of every inline comment, one per file:line anchor. Reproduce the comment body verbatim as Markdown — do NOT show the raw JSON payload, do NOT escape newlines. The user reads the preview to decide whether to approve posting; raw JSON is unreadable. Format:

   ### Preview — comment <n> of <total>
   
   **File**: `<path>:<line>`
   
   ---
   
   <verbatim comment body, rendered as Markdown>
   
   ---
   

   If the comment body contains fenced code blocks, render them as fenced code blocks in the preview (not as escaped strings).

10. Wait for confirmation

Show the exact gh api command but do NOT run it until the user says to proceed:

gh api repos/tetherto/qvac/pulls/<num>/reviews \
  --method POST \
  --input /tmp/pr-<num>-review.json

11. Post on confirmation

Run the command. If it fails, show the error and the JSON payload for debugging.

12. Output link

https://github.com/tetherto/qvac/pull/<num>#pullrequestreview-<review_id>

References

• Per-pod team metadata + ownedPaths: .github/teams/<pod>.json
• Per-pod cursor rules: .cursor/rules/<pod>/
• PR templates: .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/
• Gitflow: docs/gitflow.md