agentleFS
n24q02mn24q02m/crg/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md

review-pr

Skill76 starsChanged 8 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Comprehensive PR review -- full branch diff against base, commit-by-commit analysis, breaking change detection, conventional commit verification.

186 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use diagnose-ci-failures, docs-loop and 8 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

    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

  • GeiserXSkill

    docs-loop

    Use when the user asks to audit docs, check documentation for stale claims, or verify docs against the code.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • GeiserXSkill

    full-loop

    Drive a repository to done with sergio-loop, then keep improving it with refine-loop at a descending theta. Use only when the user explicitly invokes full-loop.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +7 more from GeiserX

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 178 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 6

    Very specific

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

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

    Command surface: run the local CLI through the coding harness shell.

    line 11
  2. Very specific:

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

    line 20
  3. Very specific:

    Verify each commit message follows Conventional Commits (type(scope): description)

    line 28
  4. Distinctive:

    Check for: removed parameters, changed return types, renamed exports, removed functions

    line 41
  5. Very specific:

    Use crg query query --pattern callers_of --target "<function>" --repo-root "<path>" to find all consumers

    line 42
  6. Distinctive:

    Read the full source of files with significant changes

    line 46
  7. Very specific:

    Use crg query query --pattern tests_for --target "<function>" --repo-root "<path>" to verify test coverage

    line 47
  8. Distinctive:

    Check for untested new functions

    line 48
  9. Very specific:

    Use crg query search --search-query "<term>" --repo-root "<path>" to find related code the PR might have missed

    line 94
  10. Distinctive:

    Check if renamed/moved functions have updated all callers

    line 95

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 178 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

Comprehensive code review of a pull request or branch diff against its base. Unlike review-delta (quick review of uncommitted local changes), this reviews ALL commits in a branch for PR submission readiness.

Command surface: run the local CLI through the coding harness shell. Examples use the installed crg command; from a source checkout, prefix it with uv run. No MCP mapping is required. Use crg review --help for the command 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 with crg graph build --base main --repo-root "<path>" so it reflects the current branch.
  3. Commit-by-commit analysis (for PRs with >3 commits):
    • git log --oneline main..HEAD to list all commits
    • Group related commits by area (feature, fix, refactor, test, docs)
    • Verify each commit message follows Conventional Commits (type(scope): description)
    • Flag commits that mix unrelated changes
  4. Get the full review context with crg review context --base main --repo-root "<path>":
    • Returns all changed files across all commits in the PR
    • Includes impacted nodes and blast radius
  5. Analyze impact with crg query impact --base main --repo-root "<path>":
    • Review the blast radius across the entire PR
    • Identify high-risk areas (widely depended-upon code)
  6. Breaking change detection for public APIs:
    • Identify exported/public functions, classes, types that changed
    • Check for: removed parameters, changed return types, renamed exports, removed functions
    • Use crg query query --pattern callers_of --target "<function>" --repo-root "<path>" to find all consumers
    • Flag any change where callers outside the PR would break
  7. Deep-dive each changed file:
    • Read the full source of files with significant changes
    • Use crg query query --pattern tests_for --target "<function>" --repo-root "<path>" to verify test coverage
    • Check for untested new functions
  8. Generate structured review output:

    ## PR Review: <title>
    
    ### Summary
    <1-3 sentence overview>
    
    ### Conventional Commits Check
    - [x] `feat(parser): add Go support` -- valid
    - [ ] `fixed stuff` -- invalid, should be `fix(scope): description`
    
    ### Risk Assessment
    - **Overall risk**: Low / Medium / High
    - **Blast radius**: X files, Y functions impacted
    - **Test coverage**: N changed functions covered / M total
    - **Breaking changes**: None / List of breaking changes
    
    ### 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>

Key Differences from review-delta

Aspectreview-deltareview-pr
ScopeUncommitted changes onlyFull branch diff (all commits)
SpeedFast, minimal contextThorough, more context
Use caseQuick check before commitPR submission readiness
Commit analysisN/ACommit-by-commit + conventional commit check
Breaking changesNot checkedExplicitly detected

Tips

  • For large PRs (>10 files), focus on the highest-impact files first (most dependents)
  • Use crg query search --search-query "<term>" --repo-root "<path>" to find related code the PR might have missed
  • Check if renamed/moved functions have updated all callers

Download now (ZIP)

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.