pr-review

Review code changes by delegating to specialist agents in parallel and synthesizing a unified report. Works with PRs, staged changes, or specific files.

Verbosity

Check $ARGUMENTS for the word verbose. Strip it from the argument string before parsing the rest.

• Default: terse output. Each finding is one line (file:line: issue (fix: hint)). Synthesis report stays compact.
• verbose: full breakdown. Each finding gets the multi-field block (Severity, Confidence, etc.). Synthesis report uses the full template.

When dispatching reviewers in Step 3, include the word verbose in each Task call's prompt only if the user asked for it. Otherwise omit; the reviewers default to terse.

Step 1: Determine Scope

Parse $ARGUMENTS to determine what to review:

• PR number (e.g., 123 or #123): fetch with gh pr view $ARGUMENTS. This is the full PR review path (includes PR quality checks in Step 2).
• No argument: try gh pr view to detect a PR for the current branch. If a PR exists, use it. If not, fall back to git diff --cached (staged), then git diff (unstaged).
• staged: review git diff --cached. If nothing staged, fall back to git diff.
• File path: review that specific file's current state.

If there are no changes to review, say so and stop.

Step 2: PR Quality Check (PR path only)

Skip this step if reviewing staged changes or a file. Jump to Step 3.

When reviewing a PR, fetch and check:

• PR title, description/body, author, base branch, head branch
• gh pr diff $NUMBER for the full diff
• gh pr checks $NUMBER for CI status
• gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/$NUMBER/comments for review comments

Review the PR itself before the code:

• Title: descriptive and under 72 chars?
• Description: explains the why? Includes a test plan? Flag if empty or template-only.
• Size: count changed files and lines. Flag if >500 lines changed (suggest splitting).
• Base branch: targeting the right branch?
• CI status: passing, failing, or pending? If failing, note which checks. Fix CI first.
• Unresolved comments: list open review threads with file:line and comment text.

Step 3: Code Review (fan out to specialists in parallel)

Decide which reviewers apply by reading the diff content, not just file paths:

Dispatch all applicable reviewers in PARALLEL. Send one message that contains one Agent/Task tool call per applicable reviewer. Do NOT invoke them sequentially. Parallel dispatch cuts wall-clock time from N times the slowest review to roughly the slowest single review, with no extra token cost. Each call looks like:

Agent(subagent_type: "code-reviewer",
      prompt: "Review <scope>. <verbose?> Output one confidence score (0-100) per finding.")

Ask every reviewer to attach a confidence score per finding — Step 4 uses them.

If only one reviewer applies (a pure-docs diff, for example), a single Task call is fine. Skip the parallel pattern when there's nothing to parallelize.

While the reviewers run, you can read the PR description, recent CI logs, or open comments to enrich the synthesis in Step 4. Don't wait idly.

Step 4: Synthesize Report

Use the terse template by default. Use the verbose template only if the user passed verbose.

Default (terse)

For PR reviews:

## PR Review: #[number]: [title]

[base] -> [head]. [N files, +X/-Y lines]. CI: [pass | fail: <checks>]. PR quality: [ok | issues: <list>].

### Findings ([N])
- [agent] file:line: issue (fix: hint)
- [agent] file:line: issue (fix: hint)

### Verdict
[Ready to merge | Needs changes: <one-line blocker>]

For non-PR reviews (staged or file):

## Review ([scope])

[N findings from <agents>]:
- [agent] file:line: issue (fix: hint)
- [agent] file:line: issue (fix: hint)

If no findings, output a single line: "No issues found across [agents]."

Verbose (when the user passed verbose)

For PR reviews:

## PR Review: #[number]: [title]

**Author**: [author] | **Base**: [base] -> **Head**: [head] | **Changed**: [N files, +X/-Y lines]

### PR Quality
- Title: [ok / needs improvement]
- Description: [ok / missing test plan / empty]
- Size: [ok / large, consider splitting]
- CI: [passing / failing, list failures]
- Unresolved comments: [none / list]

### Code Review
#### Critical / High
- [Agent] File:Line: issue

#### Medium
- [Agent] File:Line: issue

#### Low
- [Agent] File:Line: issue

### Verdict
[Ready to merge / Needs changes, summarize blockers]

For non-PR reviews (staged or file):

## Review Summary

**Scope**: [staged changes / file path]
**Agents run**: [list]

### Critical / High
- [Agent] File:Line: issue

### Medium / Low
- [Agent] File:Line: issue

### Passed
- [areas with no issues]

Merging, confidence, and deconfliction (both templates)

• Deduplicate findings that overlap between agents; attribute the merged finding to the agent with the most specific evidence.
• Confidence buckets: 90-100 → report as findings to act on; 80-89 → report under a Consider subheading; anything an agent shipped below 80 shouldn't exist — drop it.
• Deconfliction: when two agents flag the same lines with different fixes, prefer the more specific domain — security-reviewer over code-reviewer on input handling; performance-reviewer over code-reviewer on complexity if the path is hot, code-reviewer otherwise; silent-failure-hunter over code-reviewer on error handling. Never present two conflicting fixes for the same lines without saying which to apply.
• Attribute each finding to the agent that found it.