Code Review (PR-Based, Elite/Rigorous)

Perform a staff-level PR review using full repo context, then post the review to GitHub.

Usage

/code-review <PR_URL_or_NUMBER>

Examples:

/code-review https://github.com/your-org/your-repo/pull/123
/code-review 123

What It Does

1. Gather PR Context

gh pr view <PR> --json title,body,author,baseRefName,headRefName,commits,files,labels,additions,deletions
gh pr view <PR> --comments

Extracts:

What the PR claims to do (title/body/commits)
Where it touches (services, shared libs, frontend)
Risk flags: auth, migrations, background jobs, concurrency, data integrity

2. Get the Diff

gh pr diff <PR>           # Full diff
gh pr diff <PR> --name-only # File list

3. Build Repo-Aware Understanding

For each meaningful changed file:

Reads surrounding code (imports, callers, contracts)
Searches repo-wide for usage patterns: rg "<Symbol>" -n
Aligns with project architectural patterns

4. Review Systematically

Correctness & Logic:

Boundary cases, idempotency, error paths

Concurrency & Async:

No blocking calls in async contexts
LangChain/LangGraph: prefer .ainvoke() over .invoke()

Security & Privacy:

No hardcoded secrets, input validation, no PII in logs

Performance & Cost:

No N+1 queries, no unbounded queries

Observability:

Logging conventions followed

Database/Migrations:

Models registered, updated_at updated, safe migrations

Tests:

Cover the "why", no flaky patterns

5. Produce Outputs

Output A: Main Summary Comment

PR Summary (3-6 bullets)
Key Findings (severity-ranked: Critical/Medium/Low/Nit)
Confidence Score (X/5 with reasoning)
File-level confidence table
Mermaid sequence diagram (if non-trivial)

Posted via:

gh pr review <PR> --comment -b "<BODY>"
# Or for must-fix issues:
gh pr review <PR> --request-changes -b "<BODY>"

Output B: Per-File Comments One comment per file with actionable suggestions:

### Review: `path/to/file` (Importance: Medium)

- **Issue**: <short title>
- **Why it matters**: <tie to project patterns>
- **Suggested change**: <what to do>
- **Test**: <test to add if applicable>

Posted via:

gh issue comment <PR_URL> --body "<BODY>"

Confidence Scoring Guide

5/5: Trivial change, well-tested, no risk
4/5: Standard change, good coverage, minor concerns
3/5: Non-trivial change, needs attention in specific areas
2/5: Significant concerns, missing tests, risky patterns
1/5: Likely bugs, security issues, or major problems

Reduce score for: migrations, auth/permissions, concurrency, broad refactors, missing tests.