Pr Review

PR Review

Conduct expert-level pull request reviews using a local working directory. Focus on code quality, bug prevention, and architectural improvements with concise, actionable feedback.

Review Workflow

PR reviews follow this process:

1. Fetch PR information - Get PR metadata using gh CLI
2. Setup working directory - Clone repo and checkout PR branch
3. Examine changes - Analyze diff against base branch
4. Read context - Read full file contents directly when needed
5. Analyze architecture - Check adherence to three-layer principles
6. Write review - Create and save markdown review to ./pr-reviews/

Step 1: Fetch PR Information

Use the fetch metadata script to get PR details:

scripts/fetch_pr_metadata.sh <PR_NUMBER> [REPO]

This returns JSON with PR metadata including:

• number: PR number
• title: PR title
• headRefName: PR branch name
• baseRefName: base branch (usually main/master)
• headRepository: owner/repo info
• body, comments, author, url

If PR number unknown, list open PRs:

gh pr list --state open

Step 2: Setup Working Directory

Use the setup script to clone/update the repository and checkout the PR branch:

scripts/setup_pr_workspace.sh <OWNER> <REPO> <PR_BRANCH> <BASE_BRANCH>

Extract these values from the PR metadata obtained in Step 1:

• OWNER: From headRepository.owner.login
• REPO: From headRepository.name
• PR_BRANCH: From headRefName
• BASE_BRANCH: From baseRefName

Working directory location: $HOME/claudework/pr-reviews/<repo-name>

The script will:

• Clone the repository if it doesn't exist
• Fetch updates if repository already exists (including the base branch)
• Checkout the PR branch and pull latest changes

Important:

• All subsequent file operations should use paths relative to $HOME/claudework/pr-reviews/<repo-name>
• The script fetches the latest base branch from origin to ensure accurate diff comparisons
• Diffs always compare against refs/remotes/origin/<BASE_BRANCH> (the unambiguous remote tracking branch), never local branches that may be stale

Step 3: Examine Changes

Analyze the diff output focusing on:

• Modified lines - What changed and why
• File patterns - Which parts of codebase affected
• Scope - Size and complexity of changes

Get the diff using the script:

scripts/get_pr_diff.sh <REPO_NAME> <BASE_BRANCH> <PR_BRANCH>

Critical: The script automatically uses refs/remotes/origin/<BASE_BRANCH> (the unambiguous remote tracking branch) to ensure comparison against the latest remote branch, not a potentially stale local branch. This prevents false positives from already-merged changes.

Alternatively, use gh pr diff <PR_NUMBER> for formatted output.

Step 4: Read Full File Context

Read complete file contents directly from the working directory when diff alone is insufficient.

Use the read_file tool with absolute paths:

# Read file from PR branch (already checked out)
read_file $HOME/claudework/pr-reviews/<repo-name>/<file-path>

# Example
read_file $HOME/claudework/pr-reviews/awesomeproject/app/services/auth.js

Read full files when:

• Diff shows partial context and full function/class needed
• Understanding file structure or imports
• Checking consistency across file
• Verifying architectural placement

Pro tip: You can also checkout the base branch to compare:

cd "$WORK_DIR"
git checkout "$BASE_BRANCH"
# read old version
git checkout "$PR_BRANCH"
# read new version

Step 5: Analyze Architecture

Check adherence to three-layer architecture from references/architecture-principles.md:

Layer violations to catch:

• Business logic in endpoints/routes (should be in services)
• External API calls in business logic (should be in adapters)
• Multiple responsibilities in single function
• Stateful services (should be stateless)

Quality checks:

• DRY violations (especially error handling, logging)
• Error handling patterns (expected vs unexpected errors)
• Naming clarity (business vocabulary > tech vocabulary)
• Test coverage for new/modified services

Step 6: Write Review

Create concise markdown review and save to file.

Save Location

Always save review to current project: PROJECT_ROOT/pr-reviews/<repo-name>-<pr-number>.md

# Example paths:
pr-reviews/awesomeproject-1234.md
pr-reviews/anotherproject-567.md

Create the pr-reviews directory if it doesn't exist.

Review Structure

# PR Review: [PR Title]

**Repository:** owner/repo  
**PR:** #123  
**Branch:** feature-branch → base-branch  
**Author:** @username  
**Review Date:** YYYY-MM-DD

## Summary
[1-2 sentences: what does this PR do?]

## Architectural Review
[Layer separation, placement, patterns - be specific]

## Code Quality Issues
[Bugs, DRY violations, naming - quote code, give line numbers]

## Recommendations
[Concrete suggestions with code snippets]

## Verdict
[Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]

Writing Guidelines

• Be concise - No fluff, direct feedback only
• Be specific - Quote code, give line numbers, reference files
• Be constructive - Suggest better alternatives with code examples
• Focus on impact - Prioritize bugs and architectural issues over style

Example Feedback

Good:

In auth.js:47-52, business logic (user role calculation) is in the 
endpoint handler. Move to authService.calculateUserRole():

// auth.js (endpoint - just plumbing)
const role = await authService.calculateUserRole(user);

// authService.js (business logic)
async function calculateUserRole(user) {
  // logic here
}

Bad:

Consider moving some logic to a service layer for better separation of concerns.

Review Principles

Three Questions

1. "Is this the simplest solution that could work?"
2. "Does this follow three-layer architecture?"
3. "Will this be easy to change when requirements evolve?"

Red Flags

• Business logic in endpoints or adapters
• Duplicate error handling/logging
• Direct DB/API calls outside adapters
• Complex try-catch that should be middleware
• Solutions looking for problems (YAGNI)

Quality as Investment

• Pay tech debt while it's cheap
• Celebrate incremental improvements
• Don't let perfect be enemy of good
• Both debt and quality compound over time

Detailed Guidelines

For comprehensive review principles, error handling patterns, and JavaScript best practices, see references/review-guidelines.md.