Pull Request Review

When invoked with a PR number, review it thoroughly.

Process

1. •Get PR details: gh pr view <number>
2. •Get diff: gh pr diff <number>
3. •Review against checklist
4. •Categorize feedback by severity
5. •Submit review

Review Checklist

Correctness

• • Logic is correct
• • Edge cases handled
• • Error handling appropriate
• • Types are correct

Security

• • No hardcoded secrets
• • Input validation present
• • No injection vulnerabilities
• • Auth/authz correct

Quality

• • Code is readable
• • No duplication
• • Tests included
• • Documentation updated

Performance

• • No obvious inefficiencies
• • Appropriate data structures
• • Async used correctly

Feedback Categories

Critical - Must fix before merge

• •Security issues
• •Data loss potential
• •Breaking bugs

Warning - Should fix

• •Performance issues
• •Missing error handling
• •Poor test coverage

Suggestion - Nice to have

• •Style improvements
• •Minor refactoring
• •Documentation enhancements

Commands

# View PR
gh pr view 123

# Get diff
gh pr diff 123

# Checkout PR locally
gh pr checkout 123

# Submit review
gh pr review 123 --approve
gh pr review 123 --request-changes --body "Please fix..."
gh pr review 123 --comment --body "Looks good, minor suggestions"

Review Comment Format

### [Severity]: Brief title

**File**: `path/to/file.ts:42`

**Issue**: What's wrong and why it matters.

**Suggestion**: How to fix it.

```typescript
// Instead of
problematicCode();

// Consider
betterCode();

## Review Summary Template

```markdown
## PR Review: #123

### Summary
[Overall assessment in 1-2 sentences]

### Critical Issues
- Issue 1

### Suggestions
- Suggestion 1

### Questions
- Question about implementation choice

### Verdict
[APPROVED / REQUEST CHANGES]