pr-review
Pull request review patterns including focus areas, feedback guidelines, and approval criteria.
Installation
Follow the repository instructions for this skill and your agent. Review the files and dependencies before adding it to your workflow.
View source ↗GuidesSkill instructions
Pull Request Review
Patterns for effective code review that maintains quality while supporting developers.
Review Focus Areas
- Correctness - Does the code do what it's supposed to?
- Security - Are there any security vulnerabilities?
- Performance - Are there performance concerns?
- Maintainability - Is the code readable and maintainable?
- Testing - Are there adequate tests?
- Style - Does it follow project conventions?
Review Process
- PR Details - Fetch PR diff and description
- Context - Understand the feature/fix being implemented
- Code Analysis - Review each changed file
- Pattern Recognition - Check for known issues with similar patterns
- Feedback - Post review comments
Review Guidelines
Be Constructive
- Focus on the code, not the person
- Explain the "why" behind suggestions
- Offer alternatives, not just criticism
- Acknowledge good patterns when you see them
Categorize Feedback
| Category | Action | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Blocking | Must fix before merge | Security vulnerability, bug |
| Suggestion | Should consider | Performance improvement |
| Nit | Nice to have | Style preference |
| Question | Need clarification | Design decision |
Common Review Points
Code Quality:
- Are function names clear and descriptive?
- Is the code DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)?
- Are there any obvious bugs?
- Is error handling comprehensive?
Security:
- Are inputs validated?
- Are secrets properly managed?
- Are there any injection vulnerabilities?
- Is auth/authz properly enforced?
Performance:
- Are there N+1 query patterns?
- Is there unnecessary computation?
- Are there memory leaks?
- Is caching used appropriately?
Testing:
- Are new features tested?
- Are edge cases covered?
- Are tests readable and maintainable?
- Is test coverage adequate?
Documentation:
- Are public APIs documented?
- Are complex algorithms explained?
- Is the PR description clear?
Approval Criteria
Approve if:
- Code is correct and addresses the requirements
- No security vulnerabilities
- Tests are adequate
- Style follows conventions
- Only nits or minor suggestions remain
Request Changes if:
- There are blocking issues
- Security vulnerabilities exist
- Critical functionality is untested
- Major design concerns
Comment if:
- Have questions but no blocking issues
- Want to discuss alternatives
- Providing information for future consideration
Review Etiquette
- Review promptly (within 24 hours)
- Be respectful and professional
- Assume positive intent
- If it's not clear, ask
- Provide context for your suggestions
- Follow up on your own comments
PR Description Template
Good PRs include:
## Summary
Brief description of what this PR does
## Changes
- Change 1
- Change 2
## Testing
How this was tested
## Screenshots (if UI)
Before/after screenshots
## Related Issues
Closes #123
Examples
Read the usage examples in the source repository.
View source ↗Source history
- Indexed on
- 2026-01-20
- Index updated
- 2026-03-03
- Branch
- main
Index and sync dates describe this directory. View the source repository for code history.
GitHub ↗chat Comments (0)
Sign in to join the discussion and leave a comment.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!