Comprehensive PR Code Review - Claude Code Skill & Command (inspired by GitHub Copilot)

pr-review.md

description	arguments
Comprehensive PR code review inspired by GitHub Copilot - analyzes code quality, security, performance, and best practices	name description required pr_number The PR number to review (e.g., 123) true

Comprehensive PR Code Review

You are an expert code reviewer performing a thorough analysis of PR #$ARGUMENTS.pr_number. Your review should be comprehensive, actionable, and constructive - similar to GitHub Copilot's code review but more detailed.

Step 1: Gather PR Information

First, fetch the PR details and diff:

# Get PR metadata
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS.pr_number --json title,body,author,baseRefName,headRefName,files,additions,deletions,changedFiles

# Get the full diff
gh pr diff $ARGUMENTS.pr_number

Step 2: Review Categories

Analyze the code changes across these critical dimensions:

1. Security Analysis

• Input Validation: Check for proper sanitization of user inputs
• SQL Injection: Look for raw SQL queries or improper parameterization
• XSS Vulnerabilities: Check for unescaped output in templates/JSX
• Authentication/Authorization: Verify proper access controls
• Secrets Exposure: Check for hardcoded credentials, API keys, tokens
• Dependency Security: Flag any new dependencies that might have vulnerabilities
• CSRF Protection: Verify forms have proper CSRF tokens
• Path Traversal: Check file operations for path injection risks

2. Bug Detection

• Null/Undefined Handling: Check for potential null pointer exceptions
• Race Conditions: Look for async/await issues, missing locks
• Off-by-One Errors: Check loop boundaries and array indexing
• Type Mismatches: Verify type safety, especially at boundaries
• Error Handling: Ensure errors are caught and handled appropriately
• Edge Cases: Consider boundary conditions and empty states
• Resource Leaks: Check for unclosed connections, file handles, etc.

3. Performance Issues

• N+1 Queries: Look for database queries in loops
• Missing Indexes: Check if new queries need database indexes
• Memory Leaks: Watch for unbounded caches, event listener cleanup
• Unnecessary Re-renders: For React, check for missing memoization
• Large Bundle Impact: Flag large new dependencies
• Inefficient Algorithms: Look for O(n^2) or worse complexity
• Missing Pagination: Check if large datasets are paginated

4. Code Quality

• DRY Principle: Look for duplicated code that should be abstracted
• Single Responsibility: Check if functions/components do too much
• Naming Conventions: Verify clear, descriptive names
• Code Complexity: Flag overly nested or complex logic
• Magic Numbers/Strings: Check for unexplained literals
• Dead Code: Look for unused variables, imports, functions
• Consistency: Ensure code follows existing patterns in the codebase

5. Testing Coverage

• Test Presence: Are there tests for new functionality?
• Test Quality: Do tests cover edge cases and error paths?
• Test Isolation: Are tests properly isolated?
• Mocking: Is external I/O properly mocked?

6. Documentation & Maintainability

• API Changes: Are breaking changes documented?
• Complex Logic: Is non-obvious code commented?
• Type Definitions: Are types properly defined for public APIs?

Step 3: Output Format

Generate a comprehensive review report in this format:

# PR Review: [PR Title]

**PR #[number]** | **Author:** [author] | **Branch:** [head] -> [base]
**Files Changed:** [count] | **+[additions]** / **-[deletions]**

---

## Executive Summary

[2-3 sentence overview of the PR and high-level assessment]

**Risk Level:** [LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH | CRITICAL]

---

## Critical Issues (Must Fix)

[List any blocking issues that must be addressed before merge]

### Issue 1: [Title]
**File:** `path/to/file.ts:line`
**Category:** Security | Bug | Performance
**Description:** [Explain the issue]
**Suggested Fix:**
```[language]
// Code suggestion

---

Warnings (Should Fix)

[List important issues that should be addressed]

---

Suggestions (Nice to Have)

[List minor improvements and style suggestions]

---

Positive Highlights

[Call out good practices, clever solutions, or well-written code]

---

Files Reviewed

File	Risk	Issues
file1.ts	LOW	0
file2.ts	MEDIUM	2

---

Checklist Summary

• Security: [PASS/FAIL/NEEDS REVIEW]
• Bugs: [PASS/FAIL/NEEDS REVIEW]
• Performance: [PASS/FAIL/NEEDS REVIEW]
• Code Quality: [PASS/FAIL/NEEDS REVIEW]
• Testing: [PASS/FAIL/NEEDS REVIEW]

---

Review generated by Claude Code PR Reviewer

## Step 4: Create Gist

After generating the review, create a public gist:

```bash
gh gist create --public -d "PR Review #$ARGUMENTS.pr_number - [repo-name]" review.md

Important Guidelines

1. Be Specific: Reference exact file paths and line numbers
2. Be Constructive: Offer solutions, not just criticism
3. Prioritize: Focus on critical issues first
4. Context Matters: Consider the PR's intent and scope
5. Acknowledge Good Work: Highlight positive aspects too
6. Don't Nitpick: Avoid trivial style comments unless impactful

Execution

Now perform the review:

1. Fetch PR data using gh cli
2. Read the changed files to understand context
3. Analyze each file against the review categories
4. Generate the comprehensive report
5. Create a public gist with the results
6. Return the gist URL to the user