GitHub PR Review Comments
When To Use
Use this skill when the user asks to:
- review open GitHub PRs
- check PRs not opened by the repo owner
- identify bugs, regressions, or missing validation in a PR
- write review comments back to GitHub with
gh
Goal
Produce high-signal PR review findings and, when requested, post concise review comments with gh.
Review Standard
Default to a code review mindset:
- prioritize correctness bugs
- prioritize behavioral regressions
- prioritize compatibility and rollout risk
- prioritize missing validation where the blast radius is meaningful
- avoid low-value style commentary unless it masks a real bug
A review comment should only be posted if it says something concrete that could block, regress, or materially weaken the change.
Workflow
- Identify candidate PRs
- Prefer
gh pr list --repo friuns2/codexUI --state open.
- If the user asks for PRs not by owner, filter out PRs whose author matches the repo owner.
- Gather PR context
- Read PR title, author, body, changed files, and commits:
gh pr view <number> --repo friuns2/codexUI --json ...
- Read the diff:
gh pr diff <number> --repo friuns2/codexUI
- Narrow attention to risky files and changed contracts.
- Form findings
- Each finding should answer:
- what can break
- why it can break
- where in the patch it comes from
- Prefer 0-3 real findings over a long weak list.
- Write comments when requested
- Use
gh pr comment <number> --repo friuns2/codexUI --body ...
- Keep comments short, direct, and technical.
- One comment per distinct issue is preferred when the issues are unrelated.
Comment Style
Use a terse, high-conviction review style:
- direct
- unsentimental
- technical
- specific about the failure mode
Good pattern:
- Name the concern in one sentence.
- Explain the concrete breakage path.
- State what needs to be clarified, tested, or fixed before merge.
Avoid:
- excessive hedging
- praise padding
- long summaries of the PR before the issue
- vague “maybe consider” language when the risk is real
Repo-Specific Notes
- Canonical GitHub repo:
friuns2/codexUI
- Prefer reviewing non-owner PRs first when the user asks broadly.
- If a finding is platform-related, explicitly call out the platform that should be tested, for example WSL, Linux, macOS, or Windows.
- If you post comments, preserve the user’s requested tone as long as it stays professional and non-abusive.
Output Expectations
When reporting back to the user:
- list findings first
- include PR number
- include the short reason
- mention whether comments were posted
If no real findings are found, say so directly.
1---2name: github-pr-review-comments3description: Use when the user asks to review GitHub pull requests, identify concrete risks, and write review comments with `gh`. Focus on actionable findings, not summaries.4---56# GitHub PR Review Comments78## When To Use910Use this skill when the user asks to:1112- review open GitHub PRs13- check PRs not opened by the repo owner14- identify bugs, regressions, or missing validation in a PR15- write review comments back to GitHub with `gh`1617## Goal1819Produce high-signal PR review findings and, when requested, post concise review comments with `gh`.2021## Review Standard2223Default to a code review mindset:2425- prioritize correctness bugs26- prioritize behavioral regressions27- prioritize compatibility and rollout risk28- prioritize missing validation where the blast radius is meaningful29- avoid low-value style commentary unless it masks a real bug3031A review comment should only be posted if it says something concrete that could block, regress, or materially weaken the change.3233## Workflow34351. Identify candidate PRs36- Prefer `gh pr list --repo friuns2/codexUI --state open`.37- If the user asks for PRs not by owner, filter out PRs whose author matches the repo owner.38392. Gather PR context40- Read PR title, author, body, changed files, and commits:41 - `gh pr view <number> --repo friuns2/codexUI --json ...`42- Read the diff:43 - `gh pr diff <number> --repo friuns2/codexUI`44- Narrow attention to risky files and changed contracts.45463. Form findings47- Each finding should answer:48 - what can break49 - why it can break50 - where in the patch it comes from51- Prefer 0-3 real findings over a long weak list.52534. Write comments when requested54- Use `gh pr comment <number> --repo friuns2/codexUI --body ...`55- Keep comments short, direct, and technical.56- One comment per distinct issue is preferred when the issues are unrelated.5758## Comment Style5960Use a terse, high-conviction review style:6162- direct63- unsentimental64- technical65- specific about the failure mode6667Good pattern:68691. Name the concern in one sentence.702. Explain the concrete breakage path.713. State what needs to be clarified, tested, or fixed before merge.7273Avoid:7475- excessive hedging76- praise padding77- long summaries of the PR before the issue78- vague “maybe consider” language when the risk is real7980## Repo-Specific Notes8182- Canonical GitHub repo: `friuns2/codexUI`83- Prefer reviewing non-owner PRs first when the user asks broadly.84- If a finding is platform-related, explicitly call out the platform that should be tested, for example WSL, Linux, macOS, or Windows.85- If you post comments, preserve the user’s requested tone as long as it stays professional and non-abusive.8687## Output Expectations8889When reporting back to the user:9091- list findings first92- include PR number93- include the short reason94- mention whether comments were posted9596If no real findings are found, say so directly.