Review GitHub Pull Request

A structured, multi-agent workflow for thorough code reviews on GitHub PRs. The approach uses parallel specialized reviewers, confidence scoring, and false positive filtering to produce high-signal, actionable feedback.

Use gh for all GitHub interactions. Do not use web fetch or attempt to build/typecheck the app — CI handles that separately.

Workflow

1. Eligibility Check

Use a subagent to verify the PR is eligible for review. Skip the review if any of these are true:

• The PR is closed or merged
• The PR is a draft
• The PR doesn't need review (e.g., automated/bot PR, or trivially simple)
• You've already left a code review comment on it

If no PR number is provided, run gh pr list to show open PRs and ask which one to review.

2. Gather Context (parallel)

Launch two subagents in parallel:

Subagent A — Project guidance discovery: Find all relevant CLAUDE.md and AGENTS.md files — check the repo root and any directories whose files the PR modified. Return a list of file paths (not contents).

Subagent B — PR summary: View the PR with gh pr view and gh pr diff, then return a concise summary of what changed.

3. Parallel Code Review (5 specialized agents)

Launch 5 parallel subagents, each reviewing the PR from a different angle. Each agent should return a list of issues found, with a reason tag for why it was flagged (e.g., "CLAUDE.md adherence", "bug", "historical git context", "past PR feedback", "code comment violation").

4. Confidence Scoring

For each issue found in step 3, launch a parallel subagent that receives the PR context, the issue description, and the CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md file list. The subagent scores the issue on a 0-100 confidence scale:

For issues flagged due to CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md instructions, the scoring agent should double-check that the relevant file actually calls out that issue specifically.

5. Filter

Discard any issues scoring below 80. If no issues meet this threshold, skip to posting the "no issues found" comment.

6. Re-check Eligibility

Before posting, use a subagent to repeat the eligibility check from step 1. PRs can be closed or updated while the review runs.

7. Post Review Comment

Use gh to comment on the PR with findings. Follow these rules:

• Keep output brief
• No emojis
• Link and cite relevant code, files, and URLs
• You must provide the full git SHA in links (not $(git rev-parse HEAD) — the comment renders as Markdown)
• Provide at least 1 line of context before and after the issue line in link ranges

Comment format — issues found

### Code review

Found 3 issues:

1. <brief description> (CLAUDE.md says "<quote>")

https://github.com/OWNER/REPO/blob/FULL_SHA/path/to/file.ts#L12-L16

2. <brief description> (AGENTS.md says "<quote>")

https://github.com/OWNER/REPO/blob/FULL_SHA/path/to/file.ts#L30-L35

3. <brief description> (bug due to <file and code snippet>)

https://github.com/OWNER/REPO/blob/FULL_SHA/path/to/file.ts#L50-L55

<sub>- If this code review was useful, please react with a thumbs up. Otherwise, react with a thumbs down.</sub>

Comment format — no issues found

### Code review

No issues found. Checked for bugs, CLAUDE.md, and AGENTS.md compliance.

Link format

Links must follow this exact format for Markdown rendering to work:

https://github.com/OWNER/REPO/blob/FULL_SHA/path/to/file.ext#L[start]-L[end]

• Full 40-character git SHA (no shell expansion)
• Repo name must match the repo being reviewed
• # after the file name
• Line range as L[start]-L[end]
• Include at least 1 line of context before/after (e.g., commenting on lines 5-6 should link L4-L7)

False Positive Examples

These should be filtered out during steps 3-5. Share this context with the review and scoring agents:

• Pre-existing issues (not introduced by this PR)
• Something that looks like a bug but isn't actually one
• Pedantic nitpicks a senior engineer wouldn't flag
• Issues a linter, typechecker, or compiler would catch (imports, types, formatting, test failures)
• General code quality concerns (test coverage, docs, broad security) unless explicitly required in CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md
• Issues called out in CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md but explicitly silenced in code (e.g., lint ignore comments)
• Intentional functionality changes directly related to the PR's purpose
• Real issues on lines the author did not modify

gh Command Reference

# List open PRs
gh pr list

# View PR description and metadata
gh pr view 78

# View PR code changes
gh pr diff 78

# Get repo owner/name
gh repo view --json nameWithOwner --jq '.nameWithOwner'

# Get PR head commit SHA (full 40-char)
gh api repos/OWNER/REPO/pulls/78 --jq '.head.sha'

# Post a comment on the PR
gh pr comment 78 --body "### Code review ..."

# Post inline review comment on a specific file/line
gh api repos/OWNER/REPO/pulls/78/comments \
    --method POST \
    --field body="[your-comment]" \
    --field commit_id="[full-sha]" \
    --field path="path/to/file" \
    --field line=42 \
    --field side="RIGHT"