agentleFS
Sign inStart free
n24q02mn24q02m/better-code-review-graph/.agents/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md

review-pr

Skill76 starsChanged 7 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Review a PR or branch diff using the knowledge graph for full structural context. Outputs a structured review with blast-radius analysis.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 175 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 5

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Token optimization: Before starting, call help(topic="graph") for the full actions reference.

    line 11
  2. Very specific:

    If a PR number or branch is provided, use git diff main...<branch> to get changed files

    line 16
  3. Distinctive:

    Read the full source of files with significant changes

    line 30
  4. Very specific:

    Use query(action="query", pattern="callers_of", target=<func>) for high-risk functions

    line 31
  5. Very specific:

    Use query(action="query", pattern="tests_for", target=<func>) to verify test coverage

    line 32
  6. Distinctive:

    Check for breaking changes in public APIs

    line 33
  7. Very specific:

    Use query(action="search", search_query=<term>) to find related code the PR might have missed

    line 65
  8. Distinctive:

    Check if renamed/moved functions have updated all callers

    line 66

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 175 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Review PR

Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request or branch diff using the knowledge graph.

Token optimization: Before starting, call help(topic="graph") for the full actions reference. Never include full files unless explicitly asked.

Steps

  1. Identify the changes for the PR:
    • If a PR number or branch is provided, use git diff main...<branch> to get changed files
    • Otherwise auto-detect from the current branch vs main/master
  2. Update the graph by calling graph(action="build", base="main") to ensure the graph reflects the current state.
  3. Get the full review context by calling review(base="main"):
    • This uses main (or the specified base branch) as the diff base
    • Returns all changed files across all commits in the PR
  4. Analyze impact by calling query(action="impact", base="main"):
    • Review the blast radius across the entire PR
    • Identify high-risk areas (widely depended-upon code)
  5. Deep-dive each changed file:
    • Read the full source of files with significant changes
    • Use query(action="query", pattern="callers_of", target=<func>) for high-risk functions
    • Use query(action="query", pattern="tests_for", target=<func>) to verify test coverage
    • Check for breaking changes in public APIs

  6. Generate structured review output:

    ## PR Review: <title>

### Summary
<1-3 sentence overview>

### Risk Assessment
- **Overall risk**: Low / Medium / High
- **Blast radius**: X files, Y functions impacted
- **Test coverage**: N changed functions covered / M total

### File-by-File Review
#### <file_path>
- Changes: <description>
- Impact: <who depends on this>
- Issues: <bugs, style, concerns>

### Missing Tests
- <function_name> in <file> - no test coverage found

### Recommendations
1. <actionable suggestion>
2. <actionable suggestion>

Tips

  • For large PRs, focus on the highest-impact files first (most dependents)
  • Use query(action="search", search_query=<term>) to find related code the PR might have missed
  • Check if renamed/moved functions have updated all callers

Download now (ZIP)

  • Other versions186 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 1

    1. n24q02m/crg★ 76100% same

    Edited · 1

    1. tirth8205/code-review-graph★ 32k16% same

    Wrote their own version · 184

    1. denoland/deno★ 109ksame name
    2. ToolJet/ToolJet★ 41ksame name
    3. remix-run/remix★ 33ksame name
    4. alpinejs/alpine★ 32ksame name
    5. nrwl/nx★ 29ksame name
    6. jlowin/fastmcp★ 28ksame name
    7. PrefectHQ/fastmcp★ 28ksame name
    8. livewire/livewire★ 24ksame name
    9. microsoft/fluentui★ 20ksame name
    10. verdaccio/verdaccio★ 18ksame name

    174 more not listed

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • Used alongsideProjects with it also use write-product-spec, diagnose-ci-failures and 7 more.

    Other files people use alongside this one.

    Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
    • zerx-labSkill

      write-product-spec

      Write a PRODUCT.md spec for a significant user-facing feature in Zap, focused on detailed behavior and validation. Use when the user asks for a product spec, desired behavior doc, or PRD, wants to define feature behavior before implementation, or when the feature is substantial or behaviorally ambiguous enough that a written spec would improve implementation or review.

      Also in 4 projects that use this

    • zerx-labSkill

      diagnose-ci-failures

      Diagnose CI failures for a PR using the GitHub CLI, extract error logs, and generate a plan to fix them. Use when the user asks to check CI status, pull CI issues, triage test failures, or investigate PR build failures.

      Also in 3 projects that use this

    • charlesmatteSkill

      write-tech-spec

      Generate a technical specification document from an existing PRD through relentless technical interview and codebase exploration. Use when user wants to write a tech spec, technical specification, technical design document, TDD (technical design doc), or go deeper on the technical details of a PRD.

      Also in 4 projects that use this

    • dekozaSkill

      fix-pr

      Repair an existing pull request's review findings and target-branch conflicts, verify the result, and update the same open PR.

      Also in 5 projects that use this

    • pooyakhosraviSkill

      add-dataset

      Add a new public ophthalmic or eye-related dataset to EyeDataHub end to end. Triggers when a user says "add a dataset", "register dataset X", "/add-dataset", or describes a new ophthalmic dataset they want indexed. Walks through source verification, DatasetInfo metadata, loader/backend implementation, registry registration, generated docs, tests, and PR preparation.

      Also in 3 projects that use this

    • Neko-Catpital-LabsSkill

      make-pr

      Create or update a pull request in this repo using the preferred PR schema, upstream-first branch workflow, and repo-specific publication rules. Trigger when asked to make a PR, update a PR body, prepare PR text, publish a stacked PR branch, or whenever a branch/PR change means the GitHub PR metadata may now be stale.

      Also in 4 projects that use this

    • +2 more from zerx-lab
  • In this repository10 other files it gives its agents.

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free