---

description: Code review — local uncommitted changes or GitHub PR (pass PR number/URL for PR mode) argument-hint: [pr-number | pr-url | blank for local review]

Code Review

PR review mode adapted from PRPs-agentic-eng by Wirasm. Part of the PRP workflow series.

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Mode Selection

If $ARGUMENTS contains a PR number, PR URL, or --pr: → Jump to PR Review Mode below.

Otherwise: → Use Local Review Mode.

---

Local Review Mode

Comprehensive security and quality review of uncommitted changes.

Phase 1 — GATHER

git diff --name-only HEAD

If no changed files, stop: "Nothing to review."

Phase 2 — REVIEW

Read each changed file in full. Check for:

Security Issues (CRITICAL):

• Hardcoded credentials, API keys, tokens
• SQL injection vulnerabilities
• XSS vulnerabilities
• Missing input validation
• Insecure dependencies
• Path traversal risks

Code Quality (HIGH):

• Functions > 50 lines
• Files > 800 lines
• Nesting depth > 4 levels
• Missing error handling
• console.log statements
• TODO/FIXME comments
• Missing JSDoc for public APIs

Best Practices (MEDIUM):

• Mutation patterns (use immutable instead)
• Emoji usage in code/comments
• Missing tests for new code
• Accessibility issues (a11y)

Phase 3 — REPORT

Generate report with:

• Severity: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW
• File location and line numbers
• Issue description
• Suggested fix

Block commit if CRITICAL or HIGH issues found. Never approve code with security vulnerabilities.

---

PR Review Mode

Comprehensive GitHub PR review — fetches diff, reads full files, runs validation, posts review.

Phase 1 — FETCH

Parse input to determine PR:

Input	Action
Number (e.g. 42)	Use as PR number
URL (github.com/.../pull/42)	Extract PR number
Branch name	Find PR via gh pr list --head <branch>

gh pr view <NUMBER> --json number,title,body,author,baseRefName,headRefName,changedFiles,additions,deletions
gh pr diff <NUMBER>

If PR not found, stop with error. Store PR metadata for later phases.

Phase 2 — CONTEXT

Build review context:

1. Project rules — Read CLAUDE.md, .claude/docs/, and any contributing guidelines
2. Planning artifacts — Check .claude/prds/, .claude/plans/, .claude/reviews/, and legacy .claude/PRPs/{prds,plans,reports,reviews}/ for context related to this PR
3. PR intent — Parse PR description for goals, linked issues, test plans
4. Changed files — List all modified files and categorize by type (source, test, config, docs)

Phase 3 — REVIEW

Read each changed file in full (not just the diff hunks — you need surrounding context).

For PR reviews, fetch the full file contents at the PR head revision:

gh pr diff <NUMBER> --name-only | while IFS= read -r file; do
  gh api "repos/{owner}/{repo}/contents/$file?ref=<head-branch>" --jq '.content' | base64 -d
done

Apply the review checklist across 7 categories:

Category	What to Check
Correctness	Logic errors, off-by-ones, null handling, edge cases, race conditions
Type Safety	Type mismatches, unsafe casts, any usage, missing generics
Pattern Compliance	Matches project conventions (naming, file structure, error handling, imports)
Security	Injection, auth gaps, secret exposure, SSRF, path traversal, XSS
Performance	N+1 queries, missing indexes, unbounded loops, memory leaks, large payloads
Completeness	Missing tests, missing error handling, incomplete migrations, missing docs
Maintainability	Dead code, magic numbers, deep nesting, unclear naming, missing types

Assign severity to each finding:

Severity	Meaning	Action
CRITICAL	Security vulnerability or data loss risk	Must fix before merge
HIGH	Bug or logic error likely to cause issues	Should fix before merge
MEDIUM	Code quality issue or missing best practice	Fix recommended
LOW	Style nit or minor suggestion	Optional

Phase 4 — VALIDATE

Run available validation commands:

Detect the project type from config files (package.json, Cargo.toml, go.mod, pyproject.toml, etc.), then run the appropriate commands:

Node.js / TypeScript (has package.json):

npm run typecheck 2>/dev/null || npx tsc --noEmit 2>/dev/null  # Type check
npm run lint                                                    # Lint
npm test                                                        # Tests
npm run build                                                   # Build

Rust (has Cargo.toml):

cargo clippy -- -D warnings  # Lint
cargo test                   # Tests
cargo build                  # Build

Go (has go.mod):

go vet ./...    # Lint
go test ./...   # Tests
go build ./...  # Build

Python (has pyproject.toml / setup.py):

pytest  # Tests

Run only the commands that apply to the detected project type. Record pass/fail for each.

Phase 5 — DECIDE

Form recommendation based on findings:

Condition	Decision
Zero CRITICAL/HIGH issues, validation passes	APPROVE
Only MEDIUM/LOW issues, validation passes	APPROVE with comments
Any HIGH issues or validation failures	REQUEST CHANGES
Any CRITICAL issues	BLOCK — must fix before merge

Special cases:

• Draft PR → Always use COMMENT (not approve/block)
• Only docs/config changes → Lighter review, focus on correctness
• Explicit --approve or --request-changes flag → Override decision (but still report all findings)

Phase 6 — REPORT

Create review artifact at .claude/reviews/pr-<NUMBER>-review.md unless the repo already uses legacy .claude/PRPs/reviews/ for this workstream:

# PR Review: #<NUMBER> — <TITLE>

**Reviewed**: <date>
**Author**: <author>
**Branch**: <head> → <base>
**Decision**: APPROVE | REQUEST CHANGES | BLOCK

## Summary
<1-2 sentence overall assessment>

## Findings

### CRITICAL
<findings or "None">

### HIGH
<findings or "None">

### MEDIUM
<findings or "None">

### LOW
<findings or "None">

## Validation Results

| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| Type check | Pass / Fail / Skipped |
| Lint | Pass / Fail / Skipped |
| Tests | Pass / Fail / Skipped |
| Build | Pass / Fail / Skipped |

## Files Reviewed
<list of files with change type: Added/Modified/Deleted>

Phase 7 — PUBLISH

Post the review to GitHub:

# If APPROVE
gh pr review <NUMBER> --approve --body "<summary of review>"

# If REQUEST CHANGES
gh pr review <NUMBER> --request-changes --body "<summary with required fixes>"

# If COMMENT only (draft PR or informational)
gh pr review <NUMBER> --comment --body "<summary>"

For inline comments on specific lines, use the GitHub review comments API:

gh api "repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<NUMBER>/comments" \
  -f body="<comment>" \
  -f path="<file>" \
  -F line=<line-number> \
  -f side="RIGHT" \
  -f commit_id="$(gh pr view <NUMBER> --json headRefOid --jq .headRefOid)"

Alternatively, post a single review with multiple inline comments at once:

gh api "repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<NUMBER>/reviews" \
  -f event="COMMENT" \
  -f body="<overall summary>" \
  --input comments.json  # [{"path": "file", "line": N, "body": "comment"}, ...]

Phase 8 — OUTPUT

Report to user:

PR #<NUMBER>: <TITLE>
Decision: <APPROVE|REQUEST_CHANGES|BLOCK>

Issues: <critical_count> critical, <high_count> high, <medium_count> medium, <low_count> low
Validation: <pass_count>/<total_count> checks passed

Artifacts:
  Review: .claude/reviews/pr-<NUMBER>-review.md
  GitHub: <PR URL>

Next steps:
  - <contextual suggestions based on decision>

---

Edge Cases

• No gh CLI: Fall back to local-only review (read the diff, skip GitHub publish). Warn user.
• Diverged branches: Suggest git fetch origin && git rebase origin/<base> before review.
• Large PRs (>50 files): Warn about review scope. Focus on source changes first, then tests, then config/docs.