Conduct comprehensive pull request reviews with security, architecture, and quality checks. Use when user wants to review a PR.
View on GitHubplugins/aai-core/skills/pr-review/SKILL.md
February 1, 2026
Select agents to install to:
npx add-skill https://github.com/the-answerai/alphaagent-team/blob/main/plugins/aai-core/skills/pr-review/SKILL.md -a claude-code --skill pr-reviewInstallation paths:
.claude/skills/pr-review/# /pr-review - Pull Request Review Conducts comprehensive code review of a pull request using the `git-pr-reviewer` agent. ## Workflow ### 1. Identify PR to Review If user provided PR number/URL: ```bash gh pr view <number> --json title,body,author,files ``` If no argument provided: ```bash # Find PR for current branch gh pr list --head $(git branch --show-current) ``` If no PR found: Error and suggest using `/push` first. ### 2. Launch git-pr-reviewer Agent Use the Task tool to launch `git-pr-reviewer` agent with the PR number. ### 3. The Agent Will Fetch PR details and diff: ```bash gh pr view <number> --json title,body,author,files,additions,deletions gh pr diff <number> ``` Analyze changes for: - **Security**: secrets, SQL injection, XSS, authentication gaps - **Correctness**: null safety, error handling, edge cases - **Performance**: N+1 queries, complexity, memory leaks - **Maintainability**: readability, naming, DRY violations - **Test coverage**: adequate tests for changes Generate structured review: - Critical issues (must fix) - Major concerns (should address) - Minor suggestions (nice to have) - Positive observations (good practices) Post review to GitHub (with permission). ### 4. After Review Provide: - Summary of findings - Review status (Approve/Request Changes/Comment) - Suggested next steps ## Usage ``` /pr-review # Review PR for current branch /pr-review 123 # Review specific PR number /pr-review #456 # Review specific PR ``` ## Review Categories ### Critical Issues - Security vulnerabilities - Data loss risks - Authentication/authorization gaps - Breaking changes ### Major Concerns - Logic errors - Missing error handling - Performance problems - Incomplete implementation ### Minor Suggestions - Code style improvements - Refactoring opportunities - Documentation gaps - Test coverage ### Positive Observations - Clean code patterns - Good error handling - Comprehensive tests - Clear documentation