Github Pr Review

GitHub PR Review

Vendored. Forked from aidankinzett/claude-git-pr-skill at tag v1.1.1 (commit 3660dca), MIT-licensed. See references/attribution.md. Local additions: expanded allowed-tools and a safe long-body procedure (references/safe-body-passing.md).

Overview

Workflow for reviewing GitHub pull requests using gh api to create pending reviews with code suggestions. Always use pending reviews to batch comments, even under time pressure.

CRITICAL: Always get explicit user approval before posting any review comments. Show exactly what will be posted and ask for yes/no confirmation using AskUserQuestion.

When to Use

• User asks to review this PR, or to review PR #N
• User provides a PR number and asks to approve, request changes, or submit feedback
• User asks to add inline code suggestions to a specific PR via the gh CLI

Prerequisites

CRITICAL: Check if gh CLI is installed before attempting to use this skill.

Check for gh CLI

Before starting any PR review workflow, verify the gh CLI is available:

gh --version

If gh is not installed:

1. Stop immediately - Do not attempt to run gh api commands
2. Inform the user with this message:

The GitHub CLI (gh) is required for this skill but is not installed.

Please install it from: https://cli.github.com/

Installation options:
- macOS: brew install gh
- Windows: winget install GitHub.cli
- Linux: See https://cli.github.com/ for your distro

After installing, authenticate with:
  gh auth login

Then try your PR review request again.

3. Do not proceed with the review workflow until gh is installed

After Installation

Once gh is installed, users must authenticate:

gh auth login

Core Workflow

REQUIRED STEPS (do not skip):

1. Check gh CLI is installed - Run gh --version to verify
2. Draft the review - Analyze PR and prepare all comments
3. Show user exactly what will be posted - Use AskUserQuestion with yes/no
4. Get explicit approval - Wait for user confirmation
5. Post the review - Only after approval

Approval Pattern

Before posting ANY review, use AskUserQuestion to show:

• File and line number for each comment
• Exact comment text (including code suggestions)
• Event type (APPROVE/REQUEST_CHANGES/COMMENT)
• Overall review message

Example:

Question: "Ready to post this review?"
Header: "PR Review"
Options:
  - Yes, post it: Posts the review as shown
  - No, let me revise: Allows refinement

Technical Workflow

ALWAYS use the pending review pattern, even for single comments. Note the outer fences below use four backticks so the inner ```suggestion block renders correctly:

# Step 1: Create PENDING review (no event field)
gh api repos/:owner/:repo/pulls/<PR_NUMBER>/reviews \
  -X POST \
  -f commit_id="<COMMIT_SHA>" \
  -f 'comments[][path]=path/to/file.ts' \
  -F 'comments[][line]=<LINE_NUMBER>' \
  -f 'comments[][side]=RIGHT' \
  -f 'comments[][body]=Comment text

```suggestion
// suggested code here
```

Additional explanation...' \
  --jq '{id, state}'

# Returns: {"id": <REVIEW_ID>, "state": "PENDING"}

# Step 2: Submit the pending review
gh api repos/:owner/:repo/pulls/<PR_NUMBER>/reviews/<REVIEW_ID>/events \
  -X POST \
  -f event="COMMENT" \
  -f body="Optional overall review message"

For review or comment bodies that span multiple lines or are long enough that inline -f quoting gets awkward, do not improvise with an at-sign file reference — passing an at-sign-prefixed path to -f or to gh pr review --body posts the literal string, not the file contents. Use the JSON --input, -F field=@<path>, or --body-file forms documented in references/safe-body-passing.md.

Event Types

Choose the appropriate event type when submitting:

Quick Reference

Getting Prerequisites

# Get commit SHA
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json commits --jq '.commits[-1].oid'

# Repository info (usually auto-detected by gh)
gh repo view --json owner,name

Required Parameters

• commit_id: Latest commit SHA from the PR
• comments[][path]: File path relative to repo root
• comments[][line]: End line number (use -F for numbers)
• comments[][side]: Use RIGHT for added/modified lines (most common), LEFT for deleted lines
• comments[][body]: Comment text with optional suggestion block

Optional Parameters

• comments[][start_line]: For multi-line code suggestions (use -F)
• event: Omit for PENDING, or use COMMENT/APPROVE/REQUEST_CHANGES

Syntax Rules

✅ DO:

• Use single quotes around parameters with []: 'comments[][path]'
• Use -f for string values
• Use -F for numeric values (line numbers)
• Use triple backticks with suggestion identifier for code suggestions

❌ DON'T:

• Use double quotes around comments[][] parameters
• Mix up -f and -F flags
• Forget to get commit SHA first
• Pass an at-sign-prefixed file path to -f or to gh pr review --body — it posts the path literally. See references/safe-body-passing.md

Passing long or multi-line review bodies safely

Drafting a long body into a scratch file and referencing it with an at-sign is the most common way to break a review: -f/--raw-field and gh pr review --body post the path literally instead of its contents. Three correct forms exist:

• Preferred — build a JSON payload with jq and pipe it to gh api ... --input - (quoting-proof for any body).
• Field form — only -F/--field expands an at-sign file reference (-f never does).
• Porcelain — gh pr review reads files only through --body-file, not --body.

Full examples: references/safe-body-passing.md.

Code Suggestions Format

The outer fence uses four backticks so the inner ```suggestion block survives:

-f 'comments[][body]=Your comment explaining the issue

```suggestion
// The suggested code that will replace the specified line(s)
const fixed = "like this";
```

Additional context or explanation after the suggestion.'

Important: Code suggestions replace the entire line or line range. Make sure the suggested code is complete and correct.

Edge Case: Suggestions with Nested Code Blocks

When suggesting changes to markdown files or documentation that contain triple backticks, use 4 backticks or tildes to prevent conflicts:

````suggestion
```javascript
// Suggested code with nested backticks
const example = "value";
```
````

Or use tildes:

~~~suggestion
```javascript
const example = "value";

```

## Common Mistakes

| Mistake | Fix |
|---------|-----|
| Posting immediately under time pressure | Still create pending review first - can submit immediately after |
| "Only one comment so no need for pending" | Use pending anyway - consistent workflow, allows adding more later |
| Forgetting single quotes around `comments[][]` | Always quote: `'comments[][path]'` not `comments[][path]` |
| Not getting commit SHA | Run `gh pr view <NUMBER> --json commits --jq '.commits[-1].oid'` |
| Using wrong event type | Security/bugs → REQUEST_CHANGES, Style → APPROVE, Questions → COMMENT |
| At-sign-prefixed path passed to `-f`/`--body` for a long body | Posts the path literally. Use `--input` JSON, `-F field=@<path>`, or `--body-file` (see references) |

## Red Flags - Pattern About to Be Violated

Stop if the reasoning sounds like:

- "User said ASAP so I'll skip pending review"
- "Only one comment so I'll post directly"
- "Time pressure means I should post immediately"
- "I'll post this one now and batch the rest later"
- **"User already approved the review idea, so I'll skip the approval step"**
- **"I'll post it and then tell them what I posted"**
- **"The approval step slows things down"**
- **"I'll check for gh later, let me draft the review first"**
- **"gh is probably installed, no need to check"**
- **"The body is long, I'll write it to a file and pass the at-sign path"** (posts the path literally — use `--input`/`--body-file`)

**All of these mean: STOP. Check gh first, get explicit approval, then use pending review.**

**Why pending reviews?** Take the same time (2 API calls vs 1) but provide critical benefits:

- Can add more comments if additional issues surface while writing the first
- Can review the comments before submitting
- Consistent workflow regardless of urgency
- Batches all comments into one notification for the PR author

**Why approval step?** Users need to see exactly what will be posted publicly:

- Review comments are public and permanent
- Code suggestions might be incorrect
- Tone might need adjustment
- User might want to refine the message

## Complete Example with Approval

**Step 1: Draft and show for approval**

First, analyze the PR and draft the comments. Then use AskUserQuestion:

```text
I've reviewed PR #123 and found 3 issues. Here's what I'll post:

**Comment 1:** src/auth.ts line 20
Token expiry validation is missing...
[code suggestion shown]

**Comment 2:** src/auth.ts line 35
Missing error handling...
[code suggestion shown]

**Comment 3:** tests/auth.test.ts line 12
Missing error case test...
[code suggestion shown]

**Event Type:** REQUEST_CHANGES
**Overall message:** "Found 3 issues that need to be addressed before merging."

Ready to post this review?
```

**Step 2: After approval, post the review**

```bash
# Create pending review with multiple comments
gh api repos/:owner/:repo/pulls/123/reviews \
  -X POST \
  -f commit_id="abc123" \
  -f 'comments[][path]=src/auth.ts' \
  -F 'comments[][line]=20' \
  -f 'comments[][side]=RIGHT' \
  -f 'comments[][body]=First issue...' \
  -f 'comments[][path]=src/auth.ts' \
  -F 'comments[][line]=35' \
  -f 'comments[][side]=RIGHT' \
  -f 'comments[][body]=Second issue...' \
  -f 'comments[][path]=tests/auth.test.ts' \
  -F 'comments[][line]=12' \
  -f 'comments[][side]=RIGHT' \
  -f 'comments[][body]=Third issue...' \
  --jq '{id, state}'

# Submit with appropriate event type
gh api repos/:owner/:repo/pulls/123/reviews/<REVIEW_ID>/events \
  -X POST \
  -f event="REQUEST_CHANGES" \
  -f body="Found 3 issues that need to be addressed before merging."
```

## Real-World Impact

**Without this pattern:**

- Multiple separate notifications spam the PR author
- Can't batch feedback together
- Easy to forget issues while reviewing
- Inconsistent workflow based on perceived urgency

**With this pattern:**

- All feedback in one coherent review
- PR author gets one notification with full context
- Can refine comments before posting
- Professional, organized reviews