Review a PR for correctness, security, code quality, and testing issues. TRIGGER when user asks to review a PR, check PR quality, or give feedback on a PR.
Scanned 8/31/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add HIDORAKAI002/ai-workspace-archive --skill pr-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Pr Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/hidorakai002-pr-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: pr-review
description: Review a PR for correctness, security, code quality, and testing issues. TRIGGER when user asks to review a PR, check PR quality, or give feedback on a PR.
user-invocable: true
args: "[PR number or URL] — if omitted, finds PR for current branch."
metadata:
author: autogpt-team
version: "1.0.0"
---
# PR Review
## Find the PR
```bash
gh pr list --head $(git branch --show-current) --repo Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT
gh pr view {N}
```
## Read the PR description
Before reading code, understand the **why**, **what**, and **how** from the PR description:
```bash
gh pr view {N} --json body --jq '.body'
```
Every PR should have a Why / What / How structure. If any of these are missing, note it as feedback.
## Read the diff
```bash
gh pr diff {N}
```
## Fetch existing review comments
Before posting anything, fetch existing inline comments to avoid duplicates:
```bash
gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N}/comments --paginate
gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N}/reviews
```
## What to check
**Description quality:** Does the PR description cover Why (motivation/problem), What (summary of changes), and How (approach/implementation details)? If any are missing, request them — you can't judge the approach without understanding the problem and intent.
**Correctness:** logic errors, off-by-one, missing edge cases, race conditions (TOCTOU in file access, credit charging), error handling gaps, async correctness (missing `await`, unclosed resources).
**Security:** input validation at boundaries, no injection (command, XSS, SQL), secrets not logged, file paths sanitized (`os.path.basename()` in error messages).
**Code quality:** apply rules from backend/frontend CLAUDE.md files.
**Architecture:** DRY, single responsibility, modular functions. `Security()` vs `Depends()` for FastAPI auth. `data:` for SSE events, `: comment` for heartbeats. `transaction=True` for Redis pipelines.
**Testing:** edge cases covered, colocated `*_test.py` (backend) / `__tests__/` (frontend), mocks target where symbol is **used** not defined, `AsyncMock` for async.
## Output format
Every comment **must** be prefixed with `🤖` and a criticality badge:
| Tier | Badge | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Blocker | `🔴 **Blocker**` | Must fix before merge |
| Should Fix | `🟠 **Should Fix**` | Important improvement |
| Nice to Have | `🟡 **Nice to Have**` | Minor suggestion |
| Nit | `🔵 **Nit**` | Style / wording |
Example: `🤖 🔴 **Blocker**: Missing error handling for X — suggest wrapping in try/except.`
## Post inline comments
For each finding, post an inline comment on the PR (do not just write a local report):
```bash
# Get the latest commit SHA for the PR
COMMIT_SHA=$(gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N} --jq '.head.sha')
# Post an inline comment on a specific file/line
gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N}/comments \
-f body="🤖 🔴 **Blocker**: <description>" \
-f commit_id="$COMMIT_SHA" \
-f path="<file path>" \
-F line=<line number>
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!