Git Review Pr

Review the PR

An independent read of the whole diff from a context that never watched it being written. Read-only: findings only, never edits.

Pre-flight

1. Resolve the PR, its base and its head: gh pr view <pr> --json number,baseRefName,headRefOid. Every finding is bound to that SHA.
2. A review report for this exact SHA already exists - report it and stop.

Steps

1. Run the review over git diff <base>...HEAD - the PR's whole diff, not the working tree. The reviewer comes from profile code_review_skill: auto (default) uses the host's own code-review skill when it ships one, else dev-review-changes. Its checks and severity ladder are the review; this skill adds the axis below and the recording.

2. The claims axis - what a pre-commit review could not check, because the PR did not exist yet:

   • every behavior the PR body claims has code in the diff that delivers it;
   • nothing in the diff contradicts a step a verification report recorded as passed;
   • the diff contains nothing the body never mentions - undeclared scope is a finding, not a bonus;
   • the deployment-notes section (profile release_review) names every migration, environment or secret change the diff actually contains. An unnamed one is Critical: git-create-release reads that section, so what is missing there is missing from the release checklist.

   Each finding cites file:line plus the body line it contradicts.

3. Verify every finding by re-reading the code; drop what cannot be evidenced. A finding that restates a rule without a line of the diff is not a finding.

4. Record. One PR comment (gh pr comment) in the report envelope git-workflow defines - never an inline review thread, because findings posted as threads come back through git-complete-pr and the run starts reviewing itself in a circle:

## Code review - CLEAN | PASS-WITH-WARNINGS | BLOCK
head: <sha> - base: <base> - files N, +A/-D

### Critical
- `path/file.ts:42` - <what> - <the rule or PR-body line it breaks>
### Warning
### Suggestion

5. Label. No Critical finding stands - add ai:reviewed. Any Critical - write no label and return the findings; the outcome is git-complete-pr's to write.

Delegation

One pass by default. Fan out by review dimension only when the diff exceeds what one pass holds: each worker gets its dimension and its slice plus the rules, never the author's account of why the change is right - a worker that inherits the rationale confirms it. Step 3 still applies to everything that comes back: a finding this skill cannot evidence itself is dropped, not forwarded.

Verify

• One comment naming the head SHA; every finding carries file:line plus evidence; a verdict is stated; ai:reviewed present only when no Critical finding stands.

Scope / hand-off

• Fixing findings, and the rounds - git-finalize-pr; other people's review threads - git-complete-pr; behavior against the PR's own steps - git-verify-pr.

Constraints

• Read-only: never edits, stages, commits or pushes.
• Only Critical blocks the factor. Promoting warnings to blockers makes the factor unearnable and the ladder meaningless.
• A diff mixing unrelated changes - the first finding is "split it".
• One issue comment per run; never inline review comments.