Github Deep Review

GitHub Deep Review

Review like Peter: high-confidence, evidence-first, code-aware, and willing to say "not proven" when the trail is weak. The goal is not a generic summary. The goal is to understand the bug class, find the real cause if possible, decide the best fix after reading enough code, and call out whether a larger refactor would improve the design.

Start

Use gh, not web browsing, for GitHub refs:

gh issue view <n> --json number,title,state,author,body,comments,labels,updatedAt,url
gh pr view <n> --json number,title,state,author,body,comments,reviews,files,commits,statusCheckRollup,mergeStateStatus,headRefName,headRepositoryOwner,url
gh pr diff <n> --patch

For PRs, collect author context by default unless the author is Peter (steipete or an obvious Peter-owned account). Use the local workflow in ~/Projects/agent-scripts/skills/github-author-context/SKILL.md and include a short Author context: block near the top of the review when the author is not Peter. After merge/rejection/close/review, use that same author-context workflow to append a contributor note only when the interaction creates durable future-review signal.

For repo-local review, also inspect:

git status --short --branch
git fetch origin
git log --oneline --decorate -20
rg "<key symbol/error/config/endpoint>"

If the repo has local instructions, issue/PR skills, docs lists, test guidance, or maintainer runbooks, read those before deciding.

Review Contract

Always answer these, explicitly:

• URL/ref: issue or PR number and affected surface.
• What is the bug or behavior being fixed?
• Can we identify the root cause? If yes, where in code and why. If no, what evidence is missing.
• For regressions, who/what introduced it and when? Include commit/PR provenance when traceable by bounded history; say unknown instead of guessing.
• Is the current/proposed fix the best possible fix after reading adjacent code?
• Would a bigger refactor improve correctness, clarity, or future maintainability?
• What proof exists: tests, live repro, CI checks, docs, dependency docs/source, shipped/current behavior.
• What remains risky or unverified.

Code Reading Depth

Read past the first touched file. Follow the real call path:

• entrypoint -> validation/parsing -> routing/dispatch -> owner module -> shared helper -> persistence/network/runtime boundary
• config/schema/docs -> runtime usage -> doctor/migration/fix path
• provider/channel/plugin owner code -> generic core seam, only if multiple owners need it
• tests around the touched surface plus adjacent regression tests

When behavior depends on a dependency, read the upstream docs/source/types or current package contract before assuming.

Prefer current source and executable proof over issue comments. Treat stale comments, old CI, and old release behavior as hints until rechecked.

Provenance

For bug/regression reviews, include a compact Provenance: answer when feasible:

• Use git log -S/-G, git blame, linked PRs/issues, and tests.
• Separate author, committer/merger, and current PR author when they differ.
• Phrase as introduced by, made visible by, or carried forward by.
• Include confidence: clear, likely, or unknown.
• For features, docs, refactors, or untraceable bugs, write N/A or say what evidence is missing.

Fix Quality Bar

Good fixes usually:

• live at the ownership boundary where the bug belongs
• preserve public/backward-compatible behavior unless the issue is about retiring it
• add a regression test at the smallest meaningful seam
• avoid broad special cases, hidden migrations, semantic sentinels, and provider/channel IDs in generic core
• update docs/changelog when user-visible behavior changes
• fail clearly in runtime paths and repair through doctor/migration paths when that is the established contract

Call out when a fix is only symptom-level. If a slightly larger refactor makes the invariant obvious and reduces future bugs, recommend it. If the refactor widens risk without improving the bug class, say so.

PR Review Shape

Lead with findings when reviewing a PR. Findings need file/line/symbol references and a concrete failure mode. Avoid vague "consider" comments.

If no blocking issues:

• say no blocking correctness issues found
• list the strongest proof checked
• name residual risk/test gaps
• answer whether the design is the best available shape

Do not approve, comment, close, merge, push, or land unless the user asked for that action.

Issue Review Shape

For bugs/issues:

1. Reconstruct the reporter's scenario and affected version/surface.
2. Check whether current main already fixes it.
3. Reproduce or create a minimal local/live proof when feasible.
4. If clear, identify root cause and proposed fix.
5. If solved on main, only comment/close when the user asks; include proof and the canonical commit/PR if known.

If reproduction is not feasible, say exactly what blocks it and what evidence would make the decision reliable.

Output Template

Use this shape when the user asks "what is this about", "is this the best fix", or "what did we fix":

Ref: #123 / PR #456
Surface: <runtime/CLI/provider/channel/docs>

Bug: <one or two sentences>
Cause: <code path + confidence>
Provenance: <introduced/made visible/carried forward by commit/PR/date, or N/A/unknown>
Best fix: <what should change and why>
Refactor: <yes/no, specific shape>
Proof: <tests/live/CI/source/dependency docs>
Risk: <remaining uncertainty>

Keep it concise, but do not skip the cause/fix/refactor/proof decision.