Review PR

Review a pull request, checking that changes work correctly within their layer and across the protocol/client boundary.

Arguments

Takes an optional PR number: /review-pr 3

If no number given, list open PRs and review the most recent one:

gh pr list --state open

System Layers

See docs/ARCHITECTURE.md for the full diagram.

Steps

1. Get the PR

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

2. Identify which layers the PR touches

Flag if a PR crosses layer boundaries — this isn't wrong, but cross-layer changes need extra attention at the integration boundary.

3. Review criteria

For all PRs:

• Does the code do what the PR description says?
• Any obvious bugs, logic errors, or missing error handling?
• Does it follow existing patterns in the codebase?
• Are there test changes? Should there be?

For protocol PRs (contracts/) — extra scrutiny:

• Reentrancy: does any function send ETH/MON before updating state?
• Access control: who can call each function? Are there missing checks?
• Escrow safety: can funds get locked permanently? Are there escape hatches (timeout, cancel)?
• Admin keys: does any contract have an owner or admin who can control funds? (This is a design violation — the protocol should never have discretion over escrowed funds.)
• EIP-712 signature validation: are signatures checked against the correct struct hash and domain separator?
• Gas: anything unusually expensive? (Loops over unbounded arrays, excessive storage writes)
• Events: are key state changes emitted? The frontend indexes these.

For client PRs (nojohns/, games/, arena/):

• Does it break existing CLI commands?
• Are new dependencies justified?
• Does signing code match the protocol's EIP-712 domain and struct?

For frontend PRs (web/):

• Does it read from the correct contract addresses?
• Does it handle RPC errors gracefully?
• Lighter review — frontend is read-only, low risk.

4. Protocol/client boundary check

This is the most important review step for cross-layer changes. If the PR touches anything related to match results, signatures, or contract interaction, verify consistency across the boundary:

• contracts/src/MatchProof.sol — the Solidity struct and EIP-712 typehash
• nojohns/wallet.py — the Python EIP-712 type definitions and domain
• docs/HANDOFF-SCAVIEFAE.md — the documented spec

Check specifically:

• Do the struct field names, types, and order match exactly?
• Is the EIP-712 domain (name, version, chainId, verifyingContract) consistent?
• Does the client's signing produce signatures the protocol will accept?
• Are addresses real (not address(0) placeholders)?

Mismatches here cause silent failures — signatures won't verify on-chain.

5. Post the review

Use PR comments for code-specific feedback (attached to the diff, resolved on update). Use issues only for standalone bugs or integration gaps that exist beyond the PR.

# Approve
gh pr review <number> --approve --body "..."

# Request changes
gh pr review <number> --request-changes --body "..."

# Comment only (no approval/rejection)
gh pr review <number> --comment --body "..."

Review format:

## Review: <PR title>

**Layers:** [which layers this PR touches]

**Schema:** [OK — consistent / WARNING — MatchResult struct changed / N/A — no schema-related changes]

### Findings

- [list of observations, concerns, suggestions]

### Verdict

[approve / request changes / comment]

6. Contract deploy gate

If the PR includes Solidity changes AND targets mainnet deployment:

• Do NOT approve without reading every line of the contract
• Verify forge tests pass: cd contracts && forge test -vv
• Check deployment script uses correct RPC and chain ID
• Flag any contract that hasn't been tested on testnet first

Testnet deploys can be approved with lighter review.

What NOT to do

• Don't edit files in the PR. If you see something that needs changing, request changes and describe what's needed.
• Don't block PRs over style. This is a hackathon.
• Don't review your own PRs with this skill — that defeats the purpose.