review-pr

📁 corygabrielsen/skills 📅 10 days ago
4
总安装量
4
周安装量
#53042
全站排名
安装命令
npx skills add https://github.com/corygabrielsen/skills --skill review-pr

Agent 安装分布

mcpjam 4
mistral-vibe 4
claude-code 4
junie 4
windsurf 4
zencoder 4

Skill 文档

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.