AgentSkillsCN

pr-review

开展全面的 Pull Request 审核,从安全性、架构性,到质量把控,全方位把关。当用户希望对 PR 进行审核时,可使用此技能。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: pr-review
description: Conduct comprehensive pull request reviews with security, architecture, and quality checks. Use when user wants to review a PR.
disable-model-invocation: true

/pr-review - Pull Request Review

Conducts comprehensive code review of a pull request using the git-pr-reviewer agent.

Workflow

1. Identify PR to Review

If user provided PR number/URL:

bash
gh pr view <number> --json title,body,author,files

If no argument provided:

bash
# Find PR for current branch
gh pr list --head $(git branch --show-current)

If no PR found: Error and suggest using /push first.

2. Launch git-pr-reviewer Agent

Use the Task tool to launch git-pr-reviewer agent with the PR number.

3. The Agent Will

Fetch PR details and diff:

bash
gh pr view <number> --json title,body,author,files,additions,deletions
gh pr diff <number>

Analyze changes for:

  • Security: secrets, SQL injection, XSS, authentication gaps
  • Correctness: null safety, error handling, edge cases
  • Performance: N+1 queries, complexity, memory leaks
  • Maintainability: readability, naming, DRY violations
  • Test coverage: adequate tests for changes

Generate structured review:

  • Critical issues (must fix)
  • Major concerns (should address)
  • Minor suggestions (nice to have)
  • Positive observations (good practices)

Post review to GitHub (with permission).

4. After Review

Provide:

  • Summary of findings
  • Review status (Approve/Request Changes/Comment)
  • Suggested next steps

Usage

code
/pr-review         # Review PR for current branch
/pr-review 123     # Review specific PR number
/pr-review #456    # Review specific PR

Review Categories

Critical Issues

  • Security vulnerabilities
  • Data loss risks
  • Authentication/authorization gaps
  • Breaking changes

Major Concerns

  • Logic errors
  • Missing error handling
  • Performance problems
  • Incomplete implementation

Minor Suggestions

  • Code style improvements
  • Refactoring opportunities
  • Documentation gaps
  • Test coverage

Positive Observations

  • Clean code patterns
  • Good error handling
  • Comprehensive tests
  • Clear documentation