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
- jameswyse/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- connext-solutions/flowctltheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- AMD-AGI/Hyperloomtheir own version, first seen Nov 12, 2026
- ToolJet/ToolJettheir own version, first seen Nov 12, 2026
- tirth8205/code-review-graphtheir own version, first seen Nov 11, 2026
- data-privacy-stack/presidiotheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
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-labSkilldiagnose-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
GeiserXSkilldocs-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
GeiserXSkillfull-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
Other versions186 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- n24q02m/better-code-review-graph★ 76100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 185
- denoland/deno★ 109ksame name
- ToolJet/ToolJet★ 41ksame name
- remix-run/remix★ 33ksame name
- tirth8205/code-review-graph★ 33ksame name
- alpinejs/alpine★ 32ksame name
- nrwl/nx★ 29ksame name
- PrefectHQ/fastmcp★ 28ksame name
- jlowin/fastmcp★ 28ksame name
- livewire/livewire★ 24ksame name
- microsoft/fluentui★ 20ksame name
175 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.
In this repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- build-graphSkill
- review-deltaSkill
- review-prSkill
- impact-auditSkill
- onboard-repoSkill
- refactor-checkSkill
- review-deltaSkill
- security-sweepSkill
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
- Very specific: line 11
Command surface: run the local CLI through the coding harness shell.
- Very specific: line 20
If a PR number or branch is provided, use git diff main...<branch> to get changed files
- Very specific: line 28
Verify each commit message follows Conventional Commits (type(scope): description)
- Distinctive: line 41
Check for: removed parameters, changed return types, renamed exports, removed functions
- Very specific: line 42
Use crg query query --pattern callers_of --target "<function>" --repo-root "<path>" to find all consumers
- Distinctive: line 46
Read the full source of files with significant changes
- Very specific: line 47
Use crg query query --pattern tests_for --target "<function>" --repo-root "<path>" to verify test coverage
- Distinctive: line 48
Check for untested new functions
- Very specific: line 94
Use crg query search --search-query "<term>" --repo-root "<path>" to find related code the PR might have missed
- Distinctive: line 95
Check if renamed/moved functions have updated all callers
“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.
Files
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
- 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
- If a PR number or branch is provided, use
- Update the graph with
crg graph build --base main --repo-root "<path>"so it reflects the current branch. - Commit-by-commit analysis (for PRs with >3 commits):
git log --oneline main..HEADto 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
- 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
- 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)
- 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
- 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
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
| Aspect | review-delta | review-pr |
| Scope | Uncommitted changes only | Full branch diff (all commits) |
| Speed | Fast, minimal context | Thorough, more context |
| Use case | Quick check before commit | PR submission readiness |
| Commit analysis | N/A | Commit-by-commit + conventional commit check |
| Breaking changes | Not checked | Explicitly 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
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
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.

