Radius Code Review
The procedure for reviewing a specific Radius pull request end to end. The rubric for what a good review contains — principles, quality and test criteria, PR-title and documentation-impact expectations, and output format — lives in code-review.instructions.md. This skill covers how to run the review: syncing to the latest PR head, resolving accurate line numbers, and delivering or staging comments. Keep working notes in the session and deliver the review through chat or the active PR review surface.
When to Use
- Reviewing a specific pull request and producing structured feedback
- Drafting or staging PR review comments when the user asks
Do not use this skill for:
- General code authoring or refactoring
- Documentation-only drift checks (use
radius-contributing-docs-updater)
- Reviewing local uncommitted changes (use the built-in
code-review agent)
Inputs
- PR number (required; ask if it is not provided and cannot be inferred)
- Repository owner / name (defaults to
radius-project/radius)
1. Sync to the latest PR head
Never trust the current worktree, cached diffs, or a prior review pass.
- Run
gh pr view <pr-number> --json title,body,headRefName,headRefOid,baseRefName,baseRefOid,commits,files,comments,reviews to collect PR metadata, changed files, prior discussion, and the head SHA.
- Run
git fetch, then compare the local checkout to the remote head. Account for rebases and force-pushes: note when the head SHA, commit list, changed-file set, or merge base differs from anything you observed before.
- Recompute the merge base against the base branch and read the actual diff at the latest head before writing findings.
2. Review the changes
Apply the rubric in code-review.instructions.md and the matching language files in .github/instructions/ (Go, Shell, Make, Docker, GitHub Workflows, Bicep, Markdown). Read complete functions or surrounding call sites when a hunk alone cannot prove or disprove a finding.
Prioritize high-confidence, actionable issues:
- Correctness bugs, missing error handling, regressions, race conditions, and flaky or broken tests
- Security, authorization, credential, injection, or supply-chain concerns
- API compatibility, migration, generated-code, or deployment issues
- Test gaps that leave changed behavior unprotected
- Documentation drift that misleads contributors
Skip pure preference, generic praise, and style already handled by automation.
3. Resolve accurate line numbers
Wrong line numbers are the most common defect in generated reviews. For every inline comment:
- Never type a line number from memory.
- Resolve it from the latest head with a deterministic lookup such as
git diff --unified=0 <merge-base>...<head> plus a unique snippet search in the changed hunk.
- Confirm the line is on the
RIGHT side of the diff and inside a changed hunk. If the issue concerns nearby unchanged code, attach to the closest changed line and say so in the comment body.
- Re-check line numbers after any rebase, force-push, or refreshed diff.
4. Validate before delivering
- Every finding is supported by the latest diff and surrounding code.
- Paths and line numbers point to the current head and appear in the diff.
- Comments do not duplicate existing reviewer feedback unless they add materially new evidence.
- Severity matches impact; do not block on advisory documentation drift.
- Drop speculative or low-confidence findings — returning no findings is better than noise.
5. Assess documentation impact
Follow the documentation-impact section of the rubric. Use the radius-contributing-docs-updater skill; when the drift is directly caused by the PR, raise it as a normal finding with the specific doc path and required change.
6. Deliver or stage the review
- Summary only: reply in chat with the overall assessment and findings, using the rubric's output format.
- Draft or stage comments: if the environment exposes a PR review tool, stage comments in the pending review draft. Write each comment as the reviewer — direct and human-sounding, with no mention of a skill or AI. Do not submit the review unless the user explicitly asks and the tool supports it.
- No PR review tool available: provide the comments in chat in the rubric's output format so the user can paste them into GitHub.
Report one overall outcome: No findings, Comments (advisory), or Request changes (at least one blocking issue). Approve only when the user explicitly asks and you have authority in the active review surface.
Example Prompts
/radius-code-review Review PR #1234/radius-code-review Review radius-project/radius#5678/radius-code-review Draft review comments for the active PR
Checklist
1---2name: radius-code-review3description: Review a GitHub pull request in the Radius repository and produce concise, line-accurate feedback. Use when asked to review a PR, generate review feedback for a PR, or stage review comments for a PR.4---56# Radius Code Review78The procedure for reviewing a specific Radius pull request end to end. The rubric for *what* a good review contains — principles, quality and test criteria, PR-title and documentation-impact expectations, and output format — lives in [`code-review.instructions.md`](../../instructions/code-review.instructions.md). This skill covers *how* to run the review: syncing to the latest PR head, resolving accurate line numbers, and delivering or staging comments. Keep working notes in the session and deliver the review through chat or the active PR review surface.910## When to Use1112- Reviewing a specific pull request and producing structured feedback13- Drafting or staging PR review comments when the user asks1415Do not use this skill for:1617- General code authoring or refactoring18- Documentation-only drift checks (use `radius-contributing-docs-updater`)19- Reviewing local uncommitted changes (use the built-in `code-review` agent)2021## Inputs2223- **PR number** (required; ask if it is not provided and cannot be inferred)24- **Repository owner / name** (defaults to `radius-project/radius`)2526## 1. Sync to the latest PR head2728Never trust the current worktree, cached diffs, or a prior review pass.2930- Run `gh pr view <pr-number> --json title,body,headRefName,headRefOid,baseRefName,baseRefOid,commits,files,comments,reviews` to collect PR metadata, changed files, prior discussion, and the head SHA.31- Run `git fetch`, then compare the local checkout to the remote head. Account for rebases and force-pushes: note when the head SHA, commit list, changed-file set, or merge base differs from anything you observed before.32- Recompute the merge base against the base branch and read the actual diff at the latest head before writing findings.3334## 2. Review the changes3536Apply the rubric in [`code-review.instructions.md`](../../instructions/code-review.instructions.md) and the matching language files in `.github/instructions/` (Go, Shell, Make, Docker, GitHub Workflows, Bicep, Markdown). Read complete functions or surrounding call sites when a hunk alone cannot prove or disprove a finding.3738Prioritize high-confidence, actionable issues:3940- Correctness bugs, missing error handling, regressions, race conditions, and flaky or broken tests41- Security, authorization, credential, injection, or supply-chain concerns42- API compatibility, migration, generated-code, or deployment issues43- Test gaps that leave changed behavior unprotected44- Documentation drift that misleads contributors4546Skip pure preference, generic praise, and style already handled by automation.4748## 3. Resolve accurate line numbers4950Wrong line numbers are the most common defect in generated reviews. For every inline comment:5152- Never type a line number from memory.53- Resolve it from the latest head with a deterministic lookup such as `git diff --unified=0 <merge-base>...<head>` plus a unique snippet search in the changed hunk.54- Confirm the line is on the `RIGHT` side of the diff and inside a changed hunk. If the issue concerns nearby unchanged code, attach to the closest changed line and say so in the comment body.55- Re-check line numbers after any rebase, force-push, or refreshed diff.5657## 4. Validate before delivering5859- Every finding is supported by the latest diff and surrounding code.60- Paths and line numbers point to the current head and appear in the diff.61- Comments do not duplicate existing reviewer feedback unless they add materially new evidence.62- Severity matches impact; do not block on advisory documentation drift.63- Drop speculative or low-confidence findings — returning no findings is better than noise.6465## 5. Assess documentation impact6667Follow the documentation-impact section of the rubric. Use the [`radius-contributing-docs-updater`](../radius-contributing-docs-updater/SKILL.md) skill; when the drift is directly caused by the PR, raise it as a normal finding with the specific doc path and required change.6869## 6. Deliver or stage the review7071- **Summary only**: reply in chat with the overall assessment and findings, using the rubric's output format.72- **Draft or stage comments**: if the environment exposes a PR review tool, stage comments in the pending review draft. Write each comment as the reviewer — direct and human-sounding, with no mention of a skill or AI. Do not submit the review unless the user explicitly asks and the tool supports it.73- **No PR review tool available**: provide the comments in chat in the rubric's output format so the user can paste them into GitHub.7475Report one overall outcome: **No findings**, **Comments** (advisory), or **Request changes** (at least one blocking issue). Approve only when the user explicitly asks and you have authority in the active review surface.7677## Example Prompts7879- `/radius-code-review Review PR #1234`80- `/radius-code-review Review radius-project/radius#5678`81- `/radius-code-review Draft review comments for the active PR`8283## Checklist8485- [ ] Latest head fetched; merge base and changed files recomputed86- [ ] Rubric and language instructions applied87- [ ] Findings are specific, actionable, and high-confidence88- [ ] Cited paths and line numbers match the current diff89- [ ] Existing discussion checked to avoid duplicate comments90- [ ] Documentation impact assessed
radius-project