Review Issues Check

When working with a source file that may have been previously reviewed by Qualimetry, follow this workflow to retrieve and present any review issues found.

Step 1: Determine the Target File

Identify the file to check:

• If invoked with an argument (e.g. review-check src/MyService.cs), use that file path.
• Otherwise, use the file currently being discussed or edited in the conversation.

Step 2: Gather Repository Information

Determine the repositoryName and branchName:

repositoryName — the repository name in owner/repo-name format (e.g., organisation/my-project). The server is case-insensitive and handles .git suffixes automatically.

analysisName (optional, Qualimetry Enterprise only) — if the repository is a mono-repo with multiple analysis projects, provide the analysis project name to disambiguate. Case-insensitive. Leave empty for single-project repositories. If omitted and multiple projects are found, the server returns an error listing the available analysis names.

branchName — run this shell command:

git branch --show-current

This returns the branch name (e.g., main, develop, feature/login-page).

pullRequest (optional) — to limit the results to the issues raised on a pull request's new code, supply the PR number. Resolve it for the current branch using standard git only — no GitHub/Azure/Bitbucket CLI required. Every major host advertises the PR as a ref whose head equals the source-branch tip, so match the branch's remote head SHA against those refs:

BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current)
SHA=$(git ls-remote origin "refs/heads/$BRANCH" | cut -f1)
git ls-remote origin "refs/pull/*/head" "refs/merge-requests/*/head" "refs/pull-requests/*/from" \
  | awk -v s="$SHA" '$1==s{print $2; exit}' | grep -oE '[0-9]+' | head -1

This covers GitHub (refs/pull/<n>/head), GitLab (refs/merge-requests/<n>/head) and Bitbucket Server (refs/pull-requests/<n>/from). If it prints nothing — the branch is not pushed, or the host does not expose PR refs over git (e.g. Bitbucket Cloud, Azure DevOps) — omit pullRequest and the tools return all review issues for the file.

Step 3: Split the File Path

Split the file's path relative to the repository root into two parts:

• filePath: The directory portion, using forward slashes (/), with a trailing slash. Example: src/main/java/com/example/
• fileName: Just the filename with extension. Example: Main.java

Rules:

• Convert backslashes to forward slashes.
• The path must be relative to the repository root, not an absolute path.
• If the file is at the repository root, filePath should be an empty string.

Examples:

Step 4: Retrieve Review Issues

Call the Qualimetry MCP tool get_all_review_issues with these parameters:

• repositoryName - from Step 2
• branchName - from Step 2
• filePath - from Step 3
• fileName - from Step 3
• pullRequest (optional) - from Step 2, to return only the pull-request issues for the file

This single call returns all review issue types (coding standards, design best practices, general principles, secure principles, and policy violations).

Fallback: If get_all_review_issues is not available, call each tool individually and merge the results:

1. get_coding_standards_review_issues
2. get_design_best_practice_review_issues
3. get_general_principles_review_issues
4. get_secure_principles_review_issues
5. get_policies_review_issues

All tools take the same four parameters, plus the optional pullRequest.

Step 5: Present the Issues

If issues were found, present them to the user:

1. Group by review type (e.g., Coding Standards, Design Best Practices, General Principles, Secure Principles, Policies).
2. Within each group, order by severity (High first, then Medium, then Low).
3. For each issue, show:
   • Severity (High / Medium / Low)
   • Major Category and Minor Category
   • Explanation of the issue
   • Suggested Remedy

Step 6: Retrieve Compliant Code Example

If issues were found, also call get_standards_compliant_example with the same four parameters (repositoryName, branchName, filePath, fileName).

This tool requires an organisation administrator to enable it in the AI Settings page. If the tool returns a message indicating the feature is not enabled, present the review issues without the example and relay the message to the user.

Present the compliant code example as a reference showing how the issues could be resolved. Note that this example should be carefully reviewed - it is a suggestion, not necessarily the final solution.

Step 7: Handle No Results

• If no review was found for the file, inform the user: "No Qualimetry code review found for this file on this branch. The file may not have been reviewed yet."
• If a Qualimetry MCP tool is not available, inform the user that the Qualimetry MCP server may not be configured.

Important

• Always use git branch --show-current to get the branch name. Do not assume main or master.
• To check only a pull request's findings, resolve its number with standard git (git ls-remote origin against the host's PR refs — see Step 2) and pass it as pullRequest.
• File paths must use forward slashes, even on Windows.
• The filePath parameter must include a trailing slash if non-empty.

Related: Rules-Based Analysis Issues (Qualimetry Enterprise)

On Qualimetry Enterprise, additional tools are available for retrieving live rules-based analysis findings for a repository branch. These are distinct from the HITL code review issues retrieved by this skill:

• get_rules_based_analysis_issues_summary -- total counts by type and severity, plus the security hotspot counts
• get_rules_based_analysis_issues -- paginated issues with filtering
• get_rules_based_analysis_security_hotspots -- security-sensitive code awaiting a human review decision, which the issue tools never return
• get_rules_based_analysis_security_hotspot -- one hotspot with the rule's risk description and fix recommendations

See the analysis-issues skill for the full workflow.

For full MCP tool schemas, response formats, file path splitting rules, and presentation templates, see reference.md.