# Amia AI Pr Review Methodology

> Use when performing structured AI-driven PR reviews — 8-dimensional rubric (correctness, security, performance, test coverage, maintainability, docs, style, dependencies) with verdict ladder (approve/request-changes/comment) and severity classification. Trigger with /amia-ai-pr-review, 'review this PR', or any PR-evaluation request. Loaded by ai-maestro-integrator-agent-main-agent.

- Skill: `emasoft-ai-maestro-integrator-agent/amia-ai-pr-review-methodology` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 15 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add emasoft-ai-maestro-integrator-agent/amia-ai-pr-review-methodology`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/emasoft-ai-maestro-integrator-agent/amia-ai-pr-review-methodology/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- License: MIT
- Author: Emasoft (https://skillmd.com/u/emasoft-ai-maestro-integrator-agent)
- Updated: 2026-09-10
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/emasoft-ai-maestro-integrator-agent/amia-ai-pr-review-methodology

---


# AI PR Review Methodology Skill

## Overview

Evidence-based PR review using 4 phases and 5 analysis dimensions to catch false positives, redundant code, and unverified assumptions.

## Prerequisites

- PR workflow knowledge and ability to read diffs
- Shell access and codebase access for verification

## Instructions

1. **Gather Context (Phase 1):** Read [phase-1-context-gathering](references/phase-1-context-gathering.md). Read complete files (not just diffs), search for duplicates, understand root cause, verify all claims.

2. **Structured Analysis (Phase 2):** Read [phase-2-structured-analysis](references/phase-2-structured-analysis.md), then apply dimensions D1-D5 in order:
   - [dimension-1-problem-verification](references/dimension-1-problem-verification.md)
   - [dimension-2-redundancy-check](references/dimension-2-redundancy-check.md)
   - [dimension-3-system-integration](references/dimension-3-system-integration.md)
   - [dimension-4-senior-review](references/dimension-4-senior-review.md)
   - [dimension-5-false-positive-detection](references/dimension-5-false-positive-detection.md)

3. **Evidence Requirements (Phase 3):** Compile missing evidence: Problem Demonstration, Solution Validation, Assumption Verification, Cross-Platform Testing.

4. **Scenario Protocol (if applicable):** Match PR type to the appropriate scenario:
   - [scenario-bug-fixes](references/scenario-bug-fixes.md)
   - [scenario-dependency-updates](references/scenario-dependency-updates.md)
   - [scenario-path-changes](references/scenario-path-changes.md)
   - [scenario-performance](references/scenario-performance.md)

5. **Generate Review (Phase 4):** Use [review-output-template](references/review-output-template.md) and run [quick-reference-checklist](references/quick-reference-checklist.md) before submitting.

### Checklist

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

- [ ] Read complete files, not just the diff
- [ ] Search for existing solutions and duplicates
- [ ] Verify all claims and understand root cause
- [ ] Apply all 5 analysis dimensions (D1-D5)
- [ ] Compile missing evidence list
- [ ] Apply scenario-specific protocol if applicable
- [ ] Generate structured review using the template

## Output

| Section | Content |
|---------|---------|
| Summary | PR overview and overall assessment |
| Findings | Strengths, questions, blocking red flags |
| Recommendation | APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / COMMENT |

> **Output discipline:** All scripts support `--output-file <path>`.

## Error Handling

Non-zero exit codes on failure. See detailed guide in Resources.

## Resources

- [phase-1-context-gathering](references/phase-1-context-gathering.md) — Phase 1: gather complete context before analysis
  - 1.1 When to perform context gathering
  - 1.2 Action 1: Read complete files, not just diffs
    - 1.2.1 How to read complete files during a PR review
    - 1.2.2 Example: Good vs bad context gathering
  - 1.3 Action 2: Search for existing solutions and duplicates
    - 1.3.1 How to search for duplicates before analyzing a PR
    - 1.3.2 Example: Discovering an existing solution
  - 1.4 Action 3: Understand the problem (root cause vs symptoms)
    - 1.4.1 How to distinguish root cause from symptoms
    - 1.4.2 Example: Symptom-level vs root-cause understanding
  - 1.5 Action 4: Verify all claims made in the PR
    - 1.5.1 How to verify file path claims
    - 1.5.2 How to verify command availability claims
    - 1.5.3 Example: Verifying a claimed installation path
  - 1.6 Completion checkpoint for Phase 1

- [phase-2-structured-analysis](references/phase-2-structured-analysis.md) — Phase 2: apply the 5-dimension analysis framework
  - 2.1 When to use the structured analysis framework
  - 2.2 Overview of the 5 analysis dimensions
  - 2.3 How to apply the dimensions sequentially
  - 2.4 How to flag items requiring author evidence
  - 2.5 Cross-references to each dimension file

- [dimension-1-problem-verification](references/dimension-1-problem-verification.md) — D1: verify the problem and root cause
  - D1.1 When to apply problem verification
  - D1.2 Identifying the exact error message or unexpected behavior
  - D1.3 Determining root cause vs treating symptoms
  - D1.4 Verifying the fix addresses the root cause
  - D1.5 Documenting assumptions about the system and environment
  - D1.6 Testing methodology: before/after, multi-platform, edge cases, automated tests
  - D1.7 Red flags that indicate problem verification failure
  - D1.8 Example: A fix that treats symptoms vs one that addresses root cause

- [dimension-2-redundancy-check](references/dimension-2-redundancy-check.md) — D2: detect redundant or duplicate code
  - D2.1 When to apply redundancy checking
  - D2.2 Searching for similar patterns in the codebase
  - D2.3 Identifying when existing code already handles the case
  - D2.4 List and array addition analysis: priority order and placement justification
  - D2.5 Configuration changes vs code changes
  - D2.6 Red flags for redundancy
  - D2.7 Example: Detecting a redundant path addition

- [dimension-3-system-integration](references/dimension-3-system-integration.md) — D3: validate system integration and paths
  - D3.1 When to apply system integration validation
  - D3.2 File path verification on target systems (macOS, Linux, Windows)
  - D3.3 Cross-referencing paths with official documentation
  - D3.4 Path handling: home directory expansion, relative vs absolute, platform-specific
  - D3.5 Installation location accuracy across package managers
  - D3.6 Red flags for integration failures
  - D3.7 Example: Validating a claimed binary installation path

- [dimension-4-senior-review](references/dimension-4-senior-review.md) — D4: senior-developer architectural review
  - D4.1 When to apply senior developer review criteria
  - D4.2 Architectural layer assessment
  - D4.3 Technical debt and maintainability evaluation
  - D4.4 Performance and resource implications
  - D4.5 Security implications analysis
  - D4.6 Backwards compatibility assessment
  - D4.7 Red flags for architectural concerns
  - D4.8 Example: Evaluating a quick fix for long-term impact

- [dimension-5-false-positive-detection](references/dimension-5-false-positive-detection.md) — D5: detect false-positive fixes
  - D5.1 When to apply false positive detection
  - D5.2 Assumption identification and verification
  - D5.3 Alternative explanation analysis
  - D5.4 Placebo effect check methodology
  - D5.5 Cargo cult programming detection
  - D5.6 Confirmation bias detection
  - D5.7 The ultimate test: reversibility verification
  - D5.8 Red flags for false positives
  - D5.9 Example: A false-positive bug fix with before/after analysis

- [scenario-bug-fixes](references/scenario-bug-fixes.md) — Scenario protocol: reviewing bug-fix PRs
  - S-BUG.1 When to use this scenario protocol
  - S-BUG.2 Original error identification
  - S-BUG.3 Root cause identification requirements
  - S-BUG.4 Reproduction before the fix
  - S-BUG.5 Fix demonstration
  - S-BUG.6 Regression test requirement
  - S-BUG.7 Example: Reviewing a bug fix PR end-to-end

- [scenario-dependency-updates](references/scenario-dependency-updates.md) — Scenario protocol: reviewing dependency updates
  - S-DEP.1 When to use this scenario protocol
  - S-DEP.2 Justification requirements for new or updated dependencies
  - S-DEP.3 Security vulnerability scanning
  - S-DEP.4 License compatibility checking
  - S-DEP.5 Bundle size and performance impact assessment
  - S-DEP.6 Checking for alternatives using existing dependencies
  - S-DEP.7 Example: Reviewing a PR that adds a new npm package

- [scenario-path-changes](references/scenario-path-changes.md) — Scenario protocol: reviewing path/location changes
  - S-PATH.1 When to use this scenario protocol
  - S-PATH.2 Mandatory verification steps for path changes
  - S-PATH.3 Verification commands to request from the author
  - S-PATH.4 Evidence requirements specific to path changes
  - S-PATH.5 Example: Reviewing a PR that adds a new binary search path

- [scenario-performance](references/scenario-performance.md) — Scenario protocol: reviewing performance changes
  - S-PERF.1 When to use this scenario protocol
  - S-PERF.2 Benchmark requirements (before and after)
  - S-PERF.3 Multiple test runs and statistical significance
  - S-PERF.4 Verifying no functionality regressions
  - S-PERF.5 Significance justification (complexity vs improvement tradeoff)
  - S-PERF.6 Example: Reviewing a caching optimization PR

- [review-output-template](references/review-output-template.md) — Review output format
  - T.1 When to generate the review output
  - T.2 The complete review output template (copy-paste ready)
  - T.3 How to fill each section of the template
  - T.4 Choosing the final recommendation: APPROVE, REQUEST CHANGES, or COMMENT
  - T.5 Setting the confidence level: High, Medium, or Low
  - T.6 Writing the author note
  - T.7 Example: A completed review output

- [quick-reference-checklist](references/quick-reference-checklist.md) — 12-item pre-approval checklist
  - C.1 When to use this checklist
  - C.2 The 12-item pre-approval checklist
  - C.3 How to handle checklist failures
  - C.4 Example: Walking through the checklist for a sample PR

- [detailed-guide](references/detailed-guide.md) — Full methodology reference
  - [4 Phases Overview](#4-phases-overview)
  - [5 Analysis Dimensions](#5-analysis-dimensions)
  - [Key Principle](#key-principle)
  - [Evidence Requirements](#evidence-requirements)
  - [Scenario-Specific Protocols](#scenario-specific-protocols)
  - [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting)
  - [Error Handling](#error-handling)
  - [Extended Examples](#extended-examples)
  - [Related Skills](#related-skills)

## Examples

```bash
gh pr diff 42 > /tmp/pr42.diff
gh pr view 42 --json title,body,files
# Apply D1-D5 dimensions, compile evidence, generate review
gh pr review 42 --body "## Summary\nReviewed with AI PR methodology.\n### Recommendation: APPROVE"
```