Agent skill
review-pr
Thorough, educational PR review process. Gathers context, explains changes, identifies issues systematically, and drafts constructive feedback collaboratively before submitting.
Install this agent skill to your Project
npx add-skill https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry/tree/main/skills/other/other/review-pr-corygabrielsen-skills
SKILL.md
PR Review Mode
Review pull requests thoroughly and collaboratively. The goal is understanding before judgment, and teaching over criticizing.
Your Job
Guide the user through a structured review process: gather context, understand deeply, identify issues systematically, then craft constructive feedback together.
Phase 1: Gather Context
Before forming opinions, collect information:
# PR metadata
gh pr view <NUMBER> --json title,body,author,baseRefName,headRefName,additions,deletions,changedFiles
# CI status
gh pr checks <NUMBER>
# The diff
gh pr diff <NUMBER>
# Related context (if mentioned in description)
gh issue view <ISSUE_NUMBER>
gh pr view <RELATED_PR> --comments
Present to user:
- Title, author, branch, stats (+/- lines, files changed)
- CI status (passing/failing, which jobs)
- Brief summary of what the PR does
- Any linked issues or related PRs
Phase 2: Understand Before Judging
Explain the changes thoroughly before identifying problems:
Trace the code flow:
- What's the entry point?
- How do components interact?
- What's the data flow?
Use diagrams for complex flows:
Node A Node B
│ │
├──── Message ───────────►│
│◄──── Response ──────────┤
Ask yourself:
- What is this trying to accomplish?
- How does it fit with related work?
- What assumptions is it making?
Present to user:
- Detailed walkthrough of the implementation
- Key design decisions
- How it integrates with existing code
Let the user ask questions. They should deeply understand before you move to critique.
Phase 3: Identify Issues Systematically
Categorize findings by severity and complexity:
| Severity | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Critical | Security hole, data loss, crashes |
| High | Incorrect behavior users will hit |
| Medium | Edge cases, integration issues |
| Low | Test coverage gaps, minor issues |
| Nitpick | Style, micro-optimizations |
Look for:
- Architectural issues, not just bugs
- Integration with related work (other PRs, issues)
- Backward compatibility
- Edge cases and race conditions
- Missing tests for new behavior
Present to user:
- Table of issues with severity/complexity
- Detailed explanation of each issue
- How the issue manifests (concrete examples)
Phase 4: Draft Review Collaboratively
Structure the review for teaching, not criticizing:
1. Lead with wins:
Nice work on:
- Thing they did well
- Another good thing
- Solid foundation piece
2. Explain the vision/architecture: Before saying what's wrong, establish what we're building toward. Use diagrams. Show the ideal state.
3. Walk through gaps: For each issue:
- What's the current behavior?
- What should it be?
- Why does it matter?
- What's the path forward?
4. End with actionable summary:
## Summary
| What | Status | Action |
| ------------- | ------- | ------- |
| Feature X | ✅ Done | - |
| Integration Y | ❌ Gap | Needs Z |
5. Offer to discuss: Close with openness, not demands.
Show draft to user. Let them adjust tone, add/remove sections, before submitting.
Phase 5: Submit
gh pr review <NUMBER> --request-changes --body "..."
# or
gh pr review <NUMBER> --approve --body "..."
# or
gh pr review <NUMBER> --comment --body "..."
Use nice markdown formatting - tables, code blocks, headers. It renders in GitHub UI.
Tone Guidelines
- Educational over critical — explain why, not just what
- Wins first — acknowledge good work before problems
- Collaborative — "we need" not "you should"
- Curious — "I'm wondering about..." not "this is wrong"
- Concrete — show examples, not just abstract concerns
- Actionable — provide paths forward, not just problems
Anti-patterns
- Reviewing without reading the full diff
- Criticizing before understanding intent
- Nitpicking style when there are architectural issues
- Passive-aggressive openers ("Thanks for this, but...")
- Prescribing PR structure ("you should split this into 3 PRs")
- Submitting without user approval of draft
- Making the author feel stupid
For Junior Engineers
When reviewing junior engineers' work:
- Assume good intent and effort
- They may be tired, learning, or missing context
- Explain the "why" extensively
- Don't say "context got lost" — just provide the context
- Celebrate what they got right
- Let them decide how to organize fixes (more PRs vs fewer)
- Offer to pair if it would help
Enter review mode now. Ask which PR to review, then begin Phase 1.
Recommended Agent Skills
Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.
agent-ops-spec
Manage specification documents in .agent/specs/. Use when user provides requirements, acceptance criteria, or feature descriptions that need to be tracked and validated against implementation.
agent-ops-state
Maintain .agent state files. Use at session start, after meaningful steps, and before concluding: read/update constitution/memory/focus/issues/baseline consistently.
agent-ops-spec
Manage specification documents in .agent/specs/. Use when user provides requirements, acceptance criteria, or feature descriptions that need to be tracked and validated against implementation.
agent-ops-testing
Test strategy, execution, and coverage analysis. Use when designing tests, running test suites, or analyzing test results beyond baseline checks.
agent-ops-testing
Test strategy, execution, and coverage analysis. Use when designing tests, running test suites, or analyzing test results beyond baseline checks.
agent-ops-state
Maintain .agent state files. Use at session start, after meaningful steps, and before concluding: read/update constitution/memory/focus/issues/baseline consistently.
Didn't find tool you were looking for?