Code Review (PR-Based, Elite/Rigorous)
Perform a staff-level PR review using full repo context, then post the review to GitHub.
Usage
/code-review <PR_URL_or_NUMBER>Examples:
/code-review https://github.com/your-org/your-repo/pull/123
/code-review 123What It Does
1. Gather PR Context
gh pr view <PR> --json title,body,author,baseRefName,headRefName,commits,files,labels,additions,deletions
gh pr view <PR> --commentsExtracts:
- What the PR claims to do (title/body/commits)
- Where it touches (services, shared libs, frontend)
- Risk flags: auth, migrations, background jobs, concurrency, data integrity
2. Get the Diff
gh pr diff <PR> # Full diff
gh pr diff <PR> --name-only # File list3. Build Repo-Aware Understanding
For each meaningful changed file:
- Reads surrounding code (imports, callers, contracts)
- Searches repo-wide for usage patterns:
rg "<Symbol>" -n - Aligns with project architectural patterns
4. Review Systematically
Correctness & Logic:
- Boundary cases, idempotency, error paths
Concurrency & Async:
- No blocking calls in async contexts
- LangChain/LangGraph: prefer
.ainvoke()over.invoke()
Security & Privacy:
- No hardcoded secrets, input validation, no PII in logs
Performance & Cost:
- No N+1 queries, no unbounded queries
Observability:
- Logging conventions followed
Database/Migrations:
- Models registered,
updated_atupdated, safe migrations
Tests:
- Cover the "why", no flaky patterns
5. Produce Outputs
Output A: Main Summary Comment
- PR Summary (3-6 bullets)
- Key Findings (severity-ranked: Critical/Medium/Low/Nit)
- Confidence Score (X/5 with reasoning)
- File-level confidence table
- Mermaid sequence diagram (if non-trivial)
Posted via:
gh pr review <PR> --comment -b "<BODY>"
# Or for must-fix issues:
gh pr review <PR> --request-changes -b "<BODY>"Output B: Per-File Comments One comment per file with actionable suggestions:
### Review: `path/to/file` (Importance: Medium)
- **Issue**: <short title>
- **Why it matters**: <tie to project patterns>
- **Suggested change**: <what to do>
- **Test**: <test to add if applicable>Posted via:
gh issue comment <PR_URL> --body "<BODY>"Confidence Scoring Guide
- 5/5: Trivial change, well-tested, no risk
- 4/5: Standard change, good coverage, minor concerns
- 3/5: Non-trivial change, needs attention in specific areas
- 2/5: Significant concerns, missing tests, risky patterns
- 1/5: Likely bugs, security issues, or major problems
Reduce score for: migrations, auth/permissions, concurrency, broad refactors, missing tests.