review-pr

Thorough, educational PR review process. Gathers context, explains changes, identifies issues systematically, and drafts constructive feedback collaboratively before submitting.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "review-pr" with this command: npx skills add corygabrielsen/skills/corygabrielsen-skills-review-pr

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:

SeverityMeaning
CriticalSecurity hole, data loss, crashes
HighIncorrect behavior users will hit
MediumEdge cases, integration issues
LowTest coverage gaps, minor issues
NitpickStyle, 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.

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

General

mission-control

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

review-pr

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

decompose-pr

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

review-skill

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review