review-pr

name	review-pr
description	Review a PR on arsenal (Scality's shared S3 utilities library for TypeScript/Node.js)
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>
   

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

3. Analyze the changes against these criteria:

   Area	What to check
   TypeScript correctness	Proper typing, no unnecessary any, consistent use of strict mode, correct generics usage
   Async error handling	Uncaught promise rejections, missing error callbacks, swallowed errors in streams. Double callbacks in try/catch blocks — watch for try { cb(); } catch(err) { cb(err); } where an exception after the first cb() triggers a second call
   Async/await migration	When code is migrated from callbacks to async/await, verify: no leftover callback or next params, no mixed callback + promise patterns, proper try/catch around awaited calls, errors are re-thrown or handled (not silently swallowed)
   Stream handling	Backpressure, proper cleanup on error, no leaked file descriptors
   Dependency pinning	Git-based deps (werelogs, sproxydclient, httpagent) must pin to a tag, not a branch
   Logging	Proper use of werelogs, no console.log in production code, log levels match severity
   Model compatibility	Changes to data models (ObjectMD, BucketInfo, etc.) must preserve backward compatibility with older mdModelVersion
   Error handling	Proper use of ArsenalError, correct .is proxy checks, no swallowed errors
   API contract	Breaking changes to exported interfaces in index.ts, renamed or removed public methods
   Config changes	Backward compatibility, default values, constants changes
   Security	Injection risks, auth bypass, improper input validation, OWASP-relevant issues
   Breaking changes	Anything that changes public APIs or interfaces exported by this library
   Test coverage	New logic should have corresponding tests, existing tests should not be removed without justification

4. 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 ESLint or the project's linting config