PR Review

Perform systematic review with actionable, validated feedback only.

Scope

• Use for PR review, branch or diff review, and pre-merge checks
• Skip closed or already-reviewed PRs, draft PRs unless explicitly requested, and trivial bot-only updates

Workflow

1. Validate target:
   • Confirm repo, base or head, and requested review scope
   • Skip and explain briefly when the target is out of scope
2. Gather context:
   • Capture PR intent, changed files, and relevant CLAUDE.md files
   • Apply only in-scope CLAUDE.md rules for the changed paths
3. Choose review shape by size:
   • Small change: one pass covering bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance
   • Medium change: two parallel passes (bugs, CLAUDE.md)
   • Large change: shard by subsystem and run parallel passes per shard
4. Validate issues:
   • Re-check exact lines before reporting
   • Keep only high-confidence issues; drop speculative or duplicate items
5. Post:
   • Preferred: inline comments with reasoning
   • Fallback: same issue format in chat when inline tooling is unavailable
   • If no issues remain, post the no-issues summary

High signal only

Flag only when certain:

• Code will fail to compile (syntax, types, imports)
• Code will produce incorrect behavior (clear logic or state errors)
• Code introduces a concrete security risk with direct exploit path
• Unambiguous CLAUDE.md violation (quote rule, verify scope)

Never flag:

• Style, quality, or subjective preferences
• Pre-existing issues unrelated to the change
• Potential issues dependent on unknown inputs
• Linter-only issues likely caught automatically
• Explicitly silenced violations

Output format

Use github_inline_comment:create_inline_comment when available.

For each unique issue, use this structure:

[<severity>] <short factual title>

Why this is a bug or violation:
<one to three sentences with concrete impact>

Evidence:
- Rule or code reference
- Permalink to the exact file and line range using the full commit SHA

Suggested fix:
<committable patch snippet if <= 6 lines; otherwise clear implementation guidance>

When inline tooling is unavailable, return the same structure in chat and include path:line for each issue.

Summary (if no issues):

## Code review
No issues found. Checked for concrete bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance.

Anti-patterns

• "This might cause issues" -> "Variable x is undefined at src/foo.ts:45, causing ReferenceError at runtime."
• "Consider refactoring" -> "Violates CLAUDE.md rule '' in scoped file src/foo.ts."
• Multiple comments for the same root cause -> one comment linking all affected locations

Every flagged issue should be something a senior engineer would catch.