PR Review

Purpose

Review pull requests to ensure code quality, architectural soundness, and adherence to project conventions.

When to Use

• Reviewing any pull request
• Evaluating code changes before merge
• Checking adherence to project standards

Review Process

1. Understand the context

   • Read PR description and linked tickets
   • Understand what problem is being solved
   • Check the scope of changes

2. Research third-party dependencies (MANDATORY)

   • Identify ALL third-party libraries and dependencies in the changed code
   • Use WebSearch to find latest documentation, best practices, and common mistakes
   • Verify the code uses these dependencies correctly and as intended
   • Check for version-specific behavior or configuration options
   • See "External Technology Research" section below for details

3. Analyze the changes

   • Review each changed file thoroughly
   • Don't just skim the diff—understand what each function/module does
   • Consider how changes fit into the existing system
   • Compare implementation against researched best practices

4. Apply your lens

   • Use your agent's focus areas (architecture vs implementation)
   • Check against your agent's checklist items
   • Apply the Challenge & Propose format for issues

5. Document findings

   • Use the output format below
   • Be specific with file:line references
   • Distinguish blocking vs minor issues
   • Include findings from external research

External Technology Research

This phase is MANDATORY for any PR that uses third-party dependencies or external technologies.

When to Research

Any code using something you didn't write:

• Third-party libraries and frameworks
• Platform or browser APIs
• External services and integrations
• Build tools and configuration
• Any dependency where correct usage matters

What to Search For

1. Correct usage — Is the API being used as intended?
2. Configuration options — Are there settings that should be customized?
3. Common mistakes — What do people typically get wrong?
4. Version-specific behavior — Check package.json versions against docs
5. Performance considerations — Any known gotchas?

How to Research

"{library/technology} best practices {current year}"
"{library/technology} {version} documentation"
"{library/technology} common mistakes"
"{library/technology} correct usage"
"{library/technology} vs {alternative}"

Research Output

Include a research summary in your review:

### 🔍 External Technology Research

| Technology | Findings                | Impact on PR     |
| ---------- | ----------------------- | ---------------- |
| {name}     | {key finding from docs} | {recommendation} |

Common Checklist

These items apply regardless of review perspective:

• No exposed secrets or API keys
• No console.log or debugging code left in
• No commented-out code without explanation
• Imports organized and minimal
• Follows existing patterns in codebase
• Changes are within scope of PR description
• Third-party dependencies used correctly (verified via research)
• No common mistakes for libraries/technologies used

Output Format

## {Agent Name} Review

### Summary

| Area           | Status   | Notes   |
| -------------- | -------- | ------- |
| {focus area 1} | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {notes} |
| {focus area 2} | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {notes} |
| {focus area 3} | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {notes} |

### Verdict: {VERDICT}

### Observations

{What's done well}

### Challenges & Proposals

{Use Challenge & Propose format from agent for each issue}

### Issues Found

#### Blocking ❌

- {issue with file:line reference}

#### Minor ⚠️

- {issue with file:line reference}

---

_Review perspective: {Agent persona}_

Posting the Review

When posting via mcp__github__create_pull_request_review, use both the body and inline comments:

Review Body (body parameter)

Use the output format above for the overall review summary.

Inline Comments (comments parameter)

Add inline comments for each blocking and minor issue at its exact location:

{
  "comments": [
    {
      "path": "src/components/button.tsx",
      "line": 42,
      "body": "**Issue:** Missing error handling for null case.\n\n**Suggestion:** Add a null check before accessing properties."
    },
    {
      "path": "src/utils/format.ts",
      "line": 15,
      "body": "**Minor:** Consider using `const` instead of `let` here since the value is never reassigned."
    }
  ]
}

Finding Line Numbers

To get the correct line number for inline comments:

1. From the diff: Use mcp__github__get_pull_request_files to get file patches
2. Line numbers: Use the line number in the new file (right side of diff), not the diff position
3. Only comment on changed lines: Inline comments must be on lines that appear in the diff

Review Event

Example API Call

mcp__github__create_pull_request_review(
  owner: "INNOVATIVEGAMER",
  repo: "ds",
  pull_number: 10,
  body: "{review summary using output format above}",
  event: "COMMENT",
  comments: [
    { path: "file.tsx", line: 42, body: "Issue description..." }
  ]
)

Verdict Options

Verdict Guidelines

Agent-Specific Focus

Each agent applies their own lens when using this skill:

Principal Architect Focus

• System design and patterns
• Scalability implications
• Data model correctness
• API contract clarity
• Security boundaries
• Extensibility

SDE2 Focus

• Type safety
• Error handling
• Code structure and readability
• Naming conventions
• Edge cases
• Testability

See agent files for detailed focus areas and checklists.