AgentSkillsCN

pr

根据项目理念对拉取请求进行评审

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: pr
description: Review pull requests with project philosophy alignment
argument-hint: <pr-url | pr-number> [--quick] [--save] [--security-focus]
disable-model-invocation: true
context: fork
agent: Explore
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, WebFetch, WebSearch, TodoWrite, Bash(gh *)

PR Review

Review PRs aligned with project philosophy. Focus on what Claude wouldn't catch without project context.

Input

  • •URL: https://github.com/user/repo/pull/123
  • •PR number: #123 (in repo context)

Flags: --quick (blockers only) | --save (save to ./claudedocs/pr-review-[date]-[number].md) | --security-focus (security-focused review)

PR Data

  • •Status: !gh pr view $0 --json state,mergeable,reviewDecision,statusCheckRollup
  • •Details: !gh pr view $0 --json title,body,author,files,additions,deletions,commits,comments,reviews
  • •Diff: !gh pr diff $0

Process

1. Status Check

From the pre-loaded status data:

  • •merged / closed → SKIP
  • •draft → Brief review
  • •CI failing / conflicts → WAIT

2. Understand

From the pre-loaded details: Identify: What problem does it solve? What approach? Contributor type (First-time / Returning / Core).

3. Review

Classify findings by severity:

LevelMeaning
BlockerMust fix — bugs, security, critical logic errors
MajorShould fix — performance, missing tests, pattern violations
MinorNice to have — naming, docs, minor improvements
PraiseMust include at least 1 — acknowledge good work

Security issues are always Blocker.

4. Philosophy Alignment

Read CLAUDE.md / README.md. Evaluate using the philosophy-alignment-guide.md:

DimensionQuestion
Core Mission FitServes project's core purpose?
Scope AlignmentLibrary vs application responsibility?
Pattern ConsistencyConsistent with existing architecture?
User Base ImpactBenefits majority or niche?

Overall: High (4-5 avg) / Medium (3-3.9) / Low (1-2.9)

Latent discovery: Does this PR reveal gaps? Missing tests elsewhere? API design issues? Documentation needs?

5. Decision

Quality HIGHQuality LOW
Philosophy HIGHAPPROVEMERGE_WITH_FIXES
Philosophy MEDAPPROVE_WITH_NOTESREQUEST_CHANGES
Philosophy LOWREDIRECTDECLINE

For decision examples, see decision-examples.md.

6. Response Draft

Adjust tone by contributor type:

  • •First-time: Welcome + detailed explanation + encouragement
  • •Returning: Thanks + focused feedback
  • •Core: Peer-level discussion

For tone rules, see tone-rules.md.

Quick Mode (--quick)

Blockers only → APPROVE or REQUEST_CHANGES.