Skill: PR Review Lite

Objective

Perform a quick, checklist-based review of a pull request focusing on style issues, obvious bugs, and missing test coverage. This is a lightweight review, not a deep architectural analysis.

Non-Goals

• •Does NOT perform deep architectural review
• •Does NOT rewrite code
• •Does NOT make changes to the PR
• •Does NOT review security-sensitive changes in depth
• •Does NOT review database migrations

Tier Classification

Tier: 1 - Light/Cheap

Reasoning: Checklist-based review with pattern matching, no complex reasoning required. Read-only operation with no code changes.

Inputs

Required Parameters

• •$PR_FILES: List of files changed in the PR (or PR URL/number)

Optional Parameters

• •$FOCUS: Specific areas to focus on (default: all)

Prerequisites

• • PR diff is accessible
• • PR is not draft/WIP

Steps

Step 1: Read the PR

• •Get list of changed files
• •Read the diff for each file
• •Note the scope of changes

Step 2: Run Checklist

Go through each item:

Style & Formatting:

• • Consistent formatting
• • Follows naming conventions
• • No debug code left (console.log, print)
• • No commented-out code

Code Quality:

• • No obvious bugs
• • No null/undefined issues
• • Error handling present
• • No hardcoded values that should be config

Tests:

• • Tests exist for new code
• • Tests are meaningful (not just coverage)
• • Edge cases considered

Documentation:

• • Comments for complex logic
• • Public APIs documented
• • README updated if needed

Step 3: Compile Results

• •List all findings
• •Categorize by severity
• •Provide suggestions

Output Format

## 📋 PR Review Lite: {PR Title/Number}

### Summary
- Files reviewed: {N}
- Issues found: {N}
- Severity: {Low/Medium/High}

### ✅ Passed Checks
- {Check that passed}
- {Another check that passed}

### ⚠️ Issues Found

#### Issue 1: {Title}
**Severity:** Low/Medium/High
**File:** {filename}:{line}
**Issue:** {Description}
**Suggestion:** {How to fix}

#### Issue 2: {Title}
...

### 💡 Suggestions (Optional)
- {Nice-to-have improvement}

### Verdict
{APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / NEEDS_DISCUSSION}

Guardrails

Scope Limits

• •Review time: < 5 minutes
• •Depth: Checklist-based only
• •Changes: None (read-only)

Stop Conditions

Stop and escalate if:

• •PR involves security-sensitive code
• •PR involves database migrations
• •PR requires architectural review
• •Changes are too complex for quick review

Definition of Done

• • All files reviewed
• • Checklist completed
• • Findings documented
• • Verdict provided

Escalation Conditions

Escalate to reviewer agent if:

• •Complex architectural changes
• •Security concerns found
• •Major refactoring detected

Examples

Example 1: Clean PR

Input:

$PR_FILES: src/components/Button.tsx, src/components/Button.test.tsx

Output:

## 📋 PR Review Lite: Add Button component

### Summary
- Files reviewed: 2
- Issues found: 0
- Severity: None

### ✅ Passed Checks
- Consistent formatting
- Tests exist
- No debug code
- Error handling present

### Verdict
APPROVE - Looks good! Clean implementation with tests.

Example 2: Issues Found

Input:

$PR_FILES: src/utils/api.ts

Output:

## 📋 PR Review Lite: Add API helper

### Summary
- Files reviewed: 1
- Issues found: 2
- Severity: Medium

### ✅ Passed Checks
- Consistent formatting
- Follows naming conventions

### ⚠️ Issues Found

#### Issue 1: Missing Error Handling
**Severity:** Medium
**File:** src/utils/api.ts:25
**Issue:** fetch call has no error handling
**Suggestion:** Add try-catch or .catch()

#### Issue 2: No Tests
**Severity:** Medium
**File:** src/utils/api.ts
**Issue:** No test file found
**Suggestion:** Add src/utils/api.test.ts

### Verdict
REQUEST_CHANGES - Please address the issues above.

Related Skills/Agents

• •reviewer - For deep reviews
• •quick-fix - For fixing issues found

Changelog