Review Github

Deep-review a GitHub pull request in a strict two-phase workflow: analyze and present findings locally (Phase 1, read-only), then post only user-approved comments (Phase 2). Large PRs are reviewed in chunks for depth. Every finding carries a fix prompt for Claude Code.

All GitHub access goes through the gh CLI (authenticate once with gh auth login; needs repo scope). Below, -R owner/repo is omitted for brevity — pass it on every command unless the cwd is the target repo.

Input

The user provided: $ARGUMENTS — one of:

• A full PR URL: https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/42
• owner/repo#42
• #42 (resolve the repo with gh repo view --json nameWithOwner; ask if the cwd isn't the target repo)

Phase 0 — Fetch

Run these in parallel (independent Bash calls in one message):

1. gh pr view <N> --json title,author,headRefName,baseRefName,headRefOid,url,files,isDraft
2. gh pr diff <N> — the full diff
3. gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<N>/comments --paginate — inline review comments
4. gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/<N>/comments --paginate — top-level comments

headRefOid is the commit_id needed for posting inline comments in Phase 2.

Phase 1 — Analyze (READ-ONLY)

CRITICAL: no writes in Phase 1. No gh pr comment, no gh pr review, no --method POST|PATCH|DELETE.

Chunk plan

Group by, in priority order: feature cohort (files that work together), directory, config/infra (package.json, CI, migrations, Dockerfiles → one chunk). Skip entirely generated and lock files (*-types.ts, *.gen.ts, pnpm-lock.yaml) and list them under Skipped Files. Print the plan before reviewing:

Review plan: [Single-pass | N chunks]
- Chunk 1: [Label] ([N] files) — file1.ts, file2.ts, ...
- Skipped: [N] files (generated/lock)

Index existing comments

Record each comment's id, path, line, substance, resolved state, and author.

• A finding already raised by an existing comment → skip it, list under "Previously Raised" (mark "appears fixed" when the current diff resolves it).
• Note the id of any comment containing <!-- CLAUDE_REVIEW_SCORECARD_v1 --> — that's the scorecard to update in place.
• Comments containing <!-- CLAUDE_REVIEW_FINDING --> but no 💡 **Fix prompt:** block, whose issue is still relevant → generate a fix prompt and list under "Augmented Comments" (Phase 2 PATCHes that comment id). Comments predating the marker won't be detected — expected.

Chunked deep review

Per chunk: print Reviewing chunk 2/5: [label]..., extract that chunk's diffs, and Read the full local file for every non-trivial change — the diff alone lacks context. Analyze for:

• Bugs — logic errors, off-by-one, null/undefined risks, race conditions
• Security — injection, auth, data exposure, OWASP top 10
• Performance — N+1 queries, unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization, large payloads
• Conventions — project rules from CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md
• Logic — wrong business logic, missing edge cases, incomplete error handling
• Types — TypeScript safety, overly broad types, missing guards

Record file, line, severity, category, description, fix prompt. Do not present findings between chunks — accumulate and present once.

Confidence score

Start at 7, sum the adjustments, clamp to 1–10:

Present the draft

Merge chunk findings, deduplicate, sort critical-first. Severities: 🔴 Critical (bugs, security, data loss) · 🟠 Warning (performance, likely bugs) · 🟡 Suggestion (style, best practice) · 🟢 Nit (cosmetic).

Use this exact structure:

## PR Review Draft: owner/repo#N

**Title:** [title]  ·  **Author:** [author]
**Branch:** [head] → [base]
**Review method:** [Single-pass | Chunked (N chunks)]
**Files reviewed:** X/Y (Z skipped)

---

### Review Scorecard (will be posted as PR comment)

<!-- CLAUDE_REVIEW_SCORECARD_v1 -->
## 🔍 Review Scorecard

# Confidence Score: [N]/10

| Criteria | Points | Explanation |
|----------|--------|-------------|
| Base | 7 | — |
| Read coverage | [+1/0/-1/-2] | [one line] |
| Code complexity | [+1/0/-1/-2] | [one line] |
| Security | [+1/0/-1/-2] | [one line] |
| Test coverage | [+1/0/-1] | [one line] |
| Familiarity | [+1/0/-1] | [one line] |

**Reviewed:** [X]/[Y] files ([Z] skipped: [reason])
**Method:** [Single-pass | Chunked deep review (N chunks)]

### Summary
[2–4 sentences: ready to merge? main themes?]

### Findings Breakdown
| Severity | Count | Key Areas |
|----------|-------|-----------|
| Critical | N | [areas or —] |
| Warning | N | [areas or —] |
| Suggestion | N | [areas or —] |
| Nit | N | [areas or —] |

### Verdict
[APPROVE / APPROVE WITH SUGGESTIONS / REQUEST CHANGES / NEEDS DISCUSSION]
[one sentence]

---
*Automated review by Claude Code — [N] inline comments posted, [M] existing comments edited with fix prompts*

---

### Previously Raised (will NOT be re-posted)
- `src/foo.tsx:12` — Missing null check (by @author, still open)
- `src/bar.tsx:45` — Unused import (by @author, appears fixed)
*[Or: "No existing review comments found."]*

---

### Augmented Comments (fix prompts for previous Claude Code review comments)

A1. ✏️ Edit previous review on `[file]:[line]` (comment id: [id]) — "[original summary]"

   💡 **Fix prompt:** "[...]"

*[Or: "No existing comments need augmentation."]*

---

### New Findings

1. 🔴 **Bug** — `[file]:[line]`
   > [clear description]

   💡 **Fix prompt:** "[imperative, exact paths/lines, current code → expected replacement]"

[...more findings, sorted by severity...]

---

### Skipped Files
- `packages/api/types.gen.ts` — Generated
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` — Lock file
[Or: "No files skipped."]

Then ask:

**What would you like to post to GitHub?**
- `all` — scorecard + all findings + all augmented comments
- `none` — discard everything
- `scorecard only` — just the scorecard comment
- `1, 3, 5` — scorecard + these numbered findings only
- `all except 2` — scorecard + all findings except these
- `augments only` — scorecard + augmented comment edits only
- `A1, A2` — specific augmented comments only
- `edit N` / `delete N` — edit or delete an existing posted comment (by id from Phase 1)
- `dry-run <selection>` — preview without posting (e.g. `dry-run all`)
- Or edit any finding/prompt before posting

With zero findings, still present the scorecard with a positive assessment and offer to post it.

Phase 2 — Post (only after approval)

Dry-run: if the selection starts with dry-run, run no write command. Print each action that would be taken (command, target, severity, first ~150 chars of body), then Total: N new comments, M edits, D deletes, and stop.

Posting. Comment bodies are large markdown (backticks, newlines, fences) and are fragile on the command line — write each body to a temp file first (e.g. /tmp/claude-review-<n>.md) and pass it by reference.

1. Scorecard — post everything from <!-- CLAUDE_REVIEW_SCORECARD_v1 --> through the closing footer.

   • Existing scorecard id found in Phase 1 → edit in place: gh api --method PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/comments/<id> -F body=@<file>, appending \n\n> ℹ️ Updated from previous scorecard to the new body.
   • Otherwise → gh pr comment <N> --body-file <file>.

2. Line-level findings — one inline comment each, run in parallel where possible:

   gh api --method POST repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<N>/comments \
     -F body=@<file> -f commit_id=<headRefOid> -f path=<path> \
     -F line=<line> -f side=RIGHT
   

   Add -F start_line=<n> -f start_side=RIGHT for a multi-line span. Body content:

   <!-- CLAUDE_REVIEW_FINDING -->
   **[emoji] [Category]**: [description]
   
   💡 **Fix prompt:**
   ```
   [fix prompt text]
   ```
   

3. Augmented comments — edit the original in place, in parallel where possible: gh api --method PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/comments/<id> -F body=@<file>, body = original + fix prompt block + \n\n*— Fix prompt added by Claude Code review*.

4. edit N / delete N — PATCH the same endpoint with new text, or --method DELETE after confirming with the user.

If the user edited any text in Phase 1, post the edited version.

Two GitHub-specific gotchas:

• issues/comments/<id> (top-level, i.e. the scorecard) and pulls/comments/<id> (inline) are separate id spaces — use the endpoint matching where the comment lives.
• An inline comment is rejected when its line isn't part of the diff for commit_id, so a push between Phase 1 and Phase 2 invalidates positions. Report the failure and keep posting the rest; never abort the batch.

Report

## Review Posted ✓

Posted to [PR URL]:
- Scorecard comment [posted | edited in place] (confidence: N/10, verdict: [VERDICT])
- [N] inline comments on [files]
- [M] existing comments edited with fix prompts
- [D] comments deleted (if any)

[Any errors that occurred during posting]

Fix prompt guidelines

• Reference exact file paths and line numbers from the diff
• Describe the current code and the expected replacement
• Group related fixes sharing one root cause into a single prompt
• Imperative voice: "Replace…", "Remove…", "Add…", "Refactor…"
• Specific enough to execute with no further codebase searching
• No pronouns for code references; include the import path when a new import is needed