PR Review Comments
Goal
Generate copy/paste-ready pull request review comments for the current branch, with clear severity and precise code anchors so the comments can be posted directly on GitHub.
Inputs
- •Prefer the current git branch diff against
origin/devunless the user provides a PR base branch. - •If the user provides manual testing notes / logs, incorporate them as additional comments and map them to likely code locations.
What to do
- •Collect context
- •Determine current branch name and whether the working tree is clean.
- •Identify base branch (default to
origin/dev) and list changed files (git diff --name-status). - •Skim the highest-impact files (routes, server actions, validation, shared components).
- •Find reviewable risks
- •Security/authZ/authN gaps (server-side enforcement vs UI-only gating).
- •Data mapping correctness (form → API, API → UI, empty/null semantics).
- •Error handling and user-facing messaging (including i18n).
- •Type safety pitfalls (
any, mismatched return shapes). - •UX issues noted in testing (multi-select, multi-value inputs, loading states, navigation).
- •Performance/regression risks (unnecessary re-renders, sequential server calls).
- •Produce PR review comments
- •Output multiple separate comments (not one blob), each scoped to one issue.
- •For each comment, include exact anchor(s) so the reviewer can place it accurately in the diff.
Output format (strict)
Return a list of comments using this format exactly:
- •[Blocking|Non-blocking] <Short title>
- •Where:
<path>→<function/component/section> - •Comment to paste:
<The exact PR comment text as you'd write it on GitHub.>
- •Why: <One sentence, user impact or maintenance risk.>
- •Suggested fix: <One sentence, specific action.>
- •Where:
Constraints
- •Write in English.
- •Prefer the repository's conventions and existing utilities.
- •Do not propose large refactors unless necessary; prioritize high-signal, actionable comments.
- •If something is unclear, ask targeted clarifying questions instead of guessing.