Use this skill when reviewing a pull request for merge readiness. The goal is to produce a priority-organized assessment that clearly communicates what must be fixed before merge.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Onex Pr Review?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/julian0444-onex-pr-review)
---
name: "onex-pr-review"
description: >-
Use this skill when reviewing a pull request for merge readiness. The goal is to produce a priority-organized assessment that clearly communicates what must be fixed before merge.
disable-model-invocation: true
---
# onex-pr-review
Use this skill when reviewing a pull request for merge readiness. The goal is to produce a priority-organized assessment that clearly communicates what must be fixed before merge.
## Purpose
Systematically review all PR changes, classify issues by severity, and produce a merge readiness verdict. This ensures consistent review standards and prevents critical issues from reaching production.
## Prerequisites
- A PR number, branch with open changes, or a pasted diff / list of files to review
- Optional: `gh` CLI for `gh pr view` when you are working against GitHub; if unavailable, use local `git diff` / Cursor diffs instead
## Workflow
1. **Fetch PR context.**
Run `gh pr view <number> --json title,body,files,reviews,comments` to gather the full picture. Read the changed files locally to understand the actual diff.
2. **Review each changed file.**
For every modified file, check for: correctness, security issues, performance regressions, missing tests, breaking API changes, and code quality.
3. **Classify findings by priority.**
Assign each finding exactly one severity level:
- **CRITICAL** — Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, crashes, breaking changes. Must fix before merge.
- **MAJOR** — Performance problems, incorrect behavior, missing tests, significant quality issues. Should fix before merge.
- **MINOR** — Code quality improvements, missing docs, edge cases, non-critical refactoring. Should address but not blocking.
- **NIT** — Formatting, naming, minor style suggestions. Optional — can merge with nits remaining.
4. **Assess merge readiness.**
The PR is merge-ready only when all CRITICAL, MAJOR, and MINOR issues are resolved. NITs do not block merge.
5. **Write the review summary.**
Output a priority breakdown table, merge readiness verdict, and each finding grouped by severity with file path and description.
## Expected Output Format
A structured review containing:
- Priority breakdown table (count per severity level)
- Merge readiness verdict (ready / not ready)
- Findings grouped by severity (CRITICAL first, then MAJOR, MINOR, NIT)
- Each finding includes: file path, description, and suggested fix
## Quality Checklist
- [ ] All changed files were reviewed
- [ ] Findings use exactly one of CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR / NIT
- [ ] Merge readiness verdict is stated explicitly
- [ ] CRITICAL and MAJOR findings include a suggested fix
- [ ] No findings are left unclassified