pr-reviewer-pro ยท git:20261025.7c7d700 ยท 2026-10-25 ยท sha256 03cb37b14f12ef2e
pr-reviewer-pro git:20261025.7c7d700A
Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/03cb37b14f12ef2e.
--- name: pr-reviewer-pro description: Reviews a pull request or local branch diff like a senior engineer, covering correctness, security, performance, naming, and missing tests, and produces prioritized, actionable comments (optionally posted to GitHub). Use when the user asks to review a PR, a diff, a branch, or "check my changes before I push". --- # PR Reviewer Pro Give a review that a senior engineer would be proud of: few, high-signal, actionable comments. ## 1. Collect the diff Use the helper script (works for both cases): ```bash bash scripts/collect_diff.sh # local: current branch vs default branch bash scripts/collect_diff.sh 123 # GitHub PR #123 (needs `gh` CLI) ``` Then read surrounding code for every changed hunk; never review a hunk in isolation. Also read the PR description / commit messages to understand the *intent*. ## 2. Review checklist (in priority order) | Severity | Look for | |---|---| | ๐ด **Blocker** | Bugs, broken logic, data loss, race conditions, unhandled errors, security holes (injection, authz bypass, secrets in code, unsafe deserialization, SSRF, XSS), breaking API changes without migration | | ๐ **Major** | N+1 queries, unbounded loops/memory, missing input validation, missing tests for new logic, wrong abstractions, concurrency issues | | ๐ก **Minor** | Naming, readability, duplicated code, dead code, missing types, unclear errors, logging gaps | | ๐ก **Nit / Praise** | Style suggestions (only if no linter covers it) and genuine praise for good work | Also check: does the change actually do what the PR says? Are docs/changelog/migrations updated? ## 3. Rules - **Evidence or silence.** Every comment cites `file:line` and explains *why* it matters. No vague "consider refactoring". - **Suggest the fix.** Include a code snippet with the proposed change whenever possible. - **Respect project conventions.** Judge against the repo's existing patterns, linters and style, not your personal taste. - **Max ~10 comments.** Merge duplicates; drop nits if there are blockers. - **Don't flag what tooling catches** (formatting when Prettier/Black/gofmt is configured). - If unsure, phrase it as a question rather than a claim. ## 4. Output format ```markdown ## PR Review: <title> **Verdict:** โ Approve | ๐ฌ Approve with comments | โ Request changes **Summary:** 2โ3 sentences on what the PR does and overall quality. ### ๐ด Blockers 1. `path/file.ts:42`: <problem>. <why it matters>. ```suggestion <fixed code> ``` ### ๐ Major ### ๐ก Minor ### ๐ก Nits & praise ### ๐งช Suggested tests - <specific test case that is missing> ``` ## 5. Posting to GitHub (only if the user asks) ```bash gh pr review <number> --comment --body-file review.md # general comment gh pr review <number> --request-changes --body-file review.md # if blockers exist ``` Always show the review to the user and get confirmation before posting.