Review Pr

Review PR Skill

Review the current pull request and write the output to review.json.

Context

• The working directory is the PR branch checkout.
• The workflow usually provides an annotated diff in pr_diff.txt.
• The workflow usually provides the PR description in pr_description.txt.
• If spec_context.md exists, it contains spec context for implementation-vs-spec validation.
• When the prompt references .agents/skills/review-pr/scripts/resolve_spec_context.py, use that script to materialize spec_context.md on demand instead of expecting spec content to be embedded in the prompt.
• Focus on files and lines changed by this PR.
• Do not post comments or reviews to GitHub directly.

Review Scope

• Prioritize correctness, security, error handling, and meaningful performance issues.
• Treat comment quality and test quality as first-class review priorities alongside those — not as optional nits to mention only if time allows; check both against the repository's own conventions before finalizing your verdict.
• If the consuming repository provides a local security-review-pr companion skill or the prompt requests a security pass, apply it as supplemental guidance on code PRs and fold any security findings into the same review.json rather than emitting a separate output.
• When spec_context.md exists, use the repository's local check-impl-against-spec skill if available and treat material spec drift as a review concern.
• Include style or nit comments only when you can provide a concrete suggestion block.
• If a concern involves untouched code, mention it in top-level body instead of an inline comment.
• Do not suggest adding test cases that only vary constructor inputs or struct fields when the existing test already covers the meaningful behavior. Only suggest new tests when they exercise a distinct code path or edge case.
• When a PR is clearly a V0 or initial implementation, frame robustness suggestions (timeouts, retries, lifecycle management) as optional future work rather than blocking concerns, unless they risk correctness, security, or data loss.

Repository-specific guidance

Before reviewing, actively check whether the consuming repository ships a companion review-pr-local skill that specializes this one for its own conventions: if the prompt names one, read it there; otherwise look for one in the repository itself (for example, at .agents/skills/review-pr-local/SKILL.md, though a repository may place or name its specialization differently). If a companion exists, read it and apply its guidance as part of this review. If none turns up either way, rely on the core contract alone.

The companion is expected to specialize this skill's commenting and testing guidance with the repository's own conventions. It may never change the output JSON schema, the severity labels, the safety rules, the evidence rules, the suggestion-block constraints, or the diff-line-annotation contract described elsewhere in this skill.

Diff Line Annotations

The diff file uses these prefixes:

• [OLD:n] for deleted lines on the old side. Use "LEFT".
• [NEW:n] for added lines on the new side. Use "RIGHT".
• [OLD:n,NEW:m] for unchanged context. Use "RIGHT" with line m.

Treat these annotations as the only source of truth for inline comment locations. For every inline comment you emit, first identify the exact annotated line in pr_diff.txt (or the inlined PR diff) and copy its path, side, and line number into review.json. Do not infer line numbers from prose, rendered GitHub views, file lengths, surrounding spec text, or unannotated snippets. If you cannot point to a specific [NEW:n], [OLD:n], or [OLD:n,NEW:m] line in the annotated diff, put the feedback in top-level body instead of comments.

Comment Requirements

Every comment body must start with one of these labels:

• 🚨 [CRITICAL] for bugs, security issues, crashes, or data loss.
• ⚠️ [IMPORTANT] for logic problems, edge cases, or missing error handling.
• 💡 [SUGGESTION] for worthwhile improvements or better patterns.
• 🧹 [NIT] for cleanup only when the comment includes a suggestion block.

A confirmed violation of the repository's commenting or testing guidelines can warrant ⚠️ [IMPORTANT] on its own — regardless of how clean the rest of the PR is. Do not default these to 🧹 [NIT]/💡 [SUGGESTION] just because the surrounding code looks good.

Write comments with these constraints:

• Be concise, direct, and actionable.
• Do not add compliments or hedging.
• Prefer single-line comments.
• Keep ranges to at most 10 lines.
• Restrict inline comments to lines that appear explicitly in the annotated PR diff.
• Only create file-level or inline comments for files that exist in this PR's diff.
• If the relevant file or line is not part of the diff, put the feedback in top-level body instead of comments.
• Before adding each comment object, verify that its path, side, line, and optional start_line/start_side correspond to real annotations in the same file's diff section.

Suggestion Blocks

When proposing a code change, use:

<replacement code here>

Rules:

• Match the exact indentation of the original file.
• Include only replacement code.
• The block content replaces exactly the lines start_line–line inclusive. Every line inside the block becomes the new file content for that range, and GitHub leaves all other lines untouched.
• Do not include lines outside that range. Lines above start_line and below line remain in the file; repeating them inside the block causes them to appear twice after the suggestion is committed.
• Never open the block with a line that already appears immediately above start_line, and never close the block with a line that already appears immediately below line. If you need those lines as anchors, widen start_line or line so they are actually part of the replaced range.
• Count brace, bracket, paren, and block-delimiter depth ({, [, (, end, etc.) across the original replaced lines and ensure the replacement ends at the same depth. Do not emit phantom closing tokens, and do not drop required ones.
• When unsure of the surrounding context, widen start_line/line to include enough real lines from the diff rather than guessing at surrounding tokens.
• For multi-line suggestions, set start_line and start_side to the first line, and line and side to the last line.

Output Format

Create review.json with this shape:

{
  "verdict": "REJECT",
  "body": "## Overview\n...\n\n## Concerns\n- ...\n\n## Verdict\nFound: 1 critical, 2 important, 3 suggestions\n\n**Request changes**",
  "comments": [
    {
      "path": "path/to/file",
      "line": 42,
      "side": "RIGHT",
      "start_line": 40,
      "start_side": "RIGHT",
      "body": "⚠️ [IMPORTANT] Short explanation\n\n```suggestion\nreplacement\n```"
    }
  ]
}

Field rules:

• verdict is required and must be exactly the string "APPROVE" or "REJECT" (uppercase). Map your final recommendation as: Approve or Approve with nits → "APPROVE"; Request changes → "REJECT". The verdict and the human-readable recommendation in top-level body must agree.
• Top-level body is the GitHub review body and is required. Use body, not summary, for the review overview and final recommendation.
• comments is required and must be an array. Use an empty array when there are no inline comments.
• path must be relative to the repository root.
• line is required and must target the correct side.
• start_line is optional and only for multi-line ranges. When start_line is present, start_side is required and must be "LEFT" or "RIGHT".
• side must be "LEFT" or "RIGHT".

Body Requirements

The top-level body must include:

• A high-level overview of the PR.
• Important concerns and any untouched-code concerns that could not be commented inline.
• Issue counts in the format Found: X critical, Y important, Z suggestions.
• A final recommendation of Approve, Approve with nits, or Request changes. This recommendation must match the top-level verdict field (Approve / Approve with nits → "APPROVE"; Request changes → "REJECT").

Pre-Verdict Audit

Before drafting the top-level body or choosing verdict, complete this audit — a holistic read-through of the diff is not sufficient.

• Comments: List every comment (doc comment or inline) the diff adds or changes, one by one with its file:line. For each one, check it individually against the repository's own commenting guidelines, whatever form those take — or, if the repository defines none, judge it against the commenting distribution of existing code in the project (density, tone, what existing comments explain vs. omit). Evaluate compliance independently of the comment's writing quality, technical accuracy, or how subtle/important the issue it describes is: none of those qualities excuses a violation of an applicable guideline or a clear mismatch with the codebase's own norms.
• Tests: Check every test the diff adds or changes against the repository's own testing guidelines, whatever form those take.

Final Checks

Before returning or uploading review.json:

• Fix invalid JSON if validation fails.
• Confirm line numbers match the annotated diff.
• Run the bundled validator against the exact annotated diff you reviewed:

  python3 .agents/skills/review-pr/scripts/validate_review_json.py --review-json review.json --diff pr_diff.txt
  

  If the script reports any invalid comments, fix review.json and rerun it. Do not return or upload review.json until this validator passes. If the script path is not present at that exact location, locate validate_review_json.py under the loaded review-pr skill directory and run that copy with the same arguments.
• Do not run gh pr review, gh pr comment, gh api, or any other command that posts to GitHub.

Your only output is the final review.json.