# Wtf.pr Review

> This skill should be used when a developer or tech lead wants to review a pull request for correctness, spec adherence, and code quality — for example "review PR

- Skill: `xiduzo/wtf-pr-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 5 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add xiduzo/wtf-pr-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/xiduzo/wtf-pr-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: xiduzo (https://skillmd.com/u/xiduzo)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/xiduzo/wtf-pr-review

---


# PR Review

Review a pull request as a tech lead.

This skill reads the diff against the linked Task spec (Gherkin, Contracts, Impacted Areas).
It catches spec drift, missing test coverage, and contract violations before merge.
It does this by reading the code, not by running the software.

**Distinct from `wtf.verify-task`:** `wtf.verify-task` is a QA engineer running the implemented behavior against Gherkin scenarios (does the software do what it says?).
This skill is a developer reviewing the code itself (is the code written correctly against the spec?).

## Process

### 0. GitHub CLI setup

Run steps 1–2 of `../references/gh-setup.md`.
Stop if `gh` is not installed or not authenticated.

### 1. Identify the PR

If a PR number was passed in, use it directly.
Otherwise:

```bash
gh pr list --state open --json number,title,headRefName --limit 20
```

Call `AskUserQuestion` (per `../references/questioning-style.md`):
- question: "Which PR are you reviewing?"
- header: "PR"
- options: from open PRs listed above

Fetch the PR:

```bash
gh pr view <pr_number> --json number,title,body,headRefName,baseRefName,additions,deletions,changedFiles
```

### 2. Fetch the spec hierarchy

Extract a Task number from the PR body (`Closes #<n>` or `Fixes #<n>`) per the PR-extraction recipe in `../references/spec-hierarchy.md`.
If found, walk Task → Feature → Epic per the same reference.
Extract Gherkin, Contracts, Impacted Areas, and DoD from the Task.
Extract ACs, Goal, and constraints from the Feature and Epic.

If no Task number is found, call `AskUserQuestion` (per `../references/questioning-style.md`):
- question: "Is there a Task issue linked to this PR?"
- header: "Linked task"
- options:
  - **No linked task** → review from diff only
  - **Yes — I'll provide the number** → enter the task issue number

If there is no linked Task, the review proceeds from diff context alone (step 4 will note the absence of a spec as a finding).

### 3. Load the technical steering document

Load `docs/steering/TECH.md` per the **best-effort consumer-side load** in `../references/steering-doc-process.md`.
Apply its patterns, constraints, and conventions as the baseline for code quality judgements throughout this review.

### 4. Inspect the diff

```bash
git diff <base_branch>...<pr_branch> --stat
git diff <base_branch>...<pr_branch>
```

Read the full diff.
Note:
- Which files changed and which layers they touch
- What was added vs. removed vs. moved
- Whether the changes stay within the Impacted Areas listed in the Task

### 5. Run the review checklist

Evaluate each dimension.
Record findings as PASS / FAIL / WARN per item.

**a. Spec adherence**

For each Gherkin scenario in the Task:
- Is there a test that covers this scenario? (search test files for scenario name or equivalent describe/it block)
- Does the implementation match the Given/When/Then behavior — not just passing the test, but structurally doing what the scenario describes?

Flag: missing test for a scenario, test present but testing the wrong behavior, implementation that bypasses the scenario entirely.

**b. Contract compliance**

For each entry in the Task's Contracts & Interfaces section:
- Does the code implement exactly the specified shape? (field names, types, optionality)
- Are there any added fields not in the spec (scope creep)?
- Are any specified fields missing from the implementation?

Flag: schema drift, extra fields, missing fields, wrong types.

**c. Impacted Areas**

Cross-reference the Task's Impacted Areas list against the actual changed files:
- Unexpected files changed outside the listed areas (scope creep signal)
- Listed areas with no changes (may indicate incomplete implementation)

**d. Code quality against TECH.md**

Review changed code against the patterns and constraints in `docs/steering/TECH.md`:
- Naming conventions (domain language vs. generic names)
- Layer separation (e.g. business logic in wrong layer)
- Error handling patterns
- Function length and nesting (flag >40 lines or deep nesting as a warning, not a blocker)

**e. Test coverage**

- Are there tests for the happy path AND at least one error/edge path per public function changed?
- Does the test file pattern match the project convention (from TECH.md)?
- Are there any `skip`, `todo`, or commented-out assertions in the new tests?

**f. Definition of Done**

Check the Task's DoD checklist against the diff:
- Are all DoD items evidenced in the diff or existing code?

### 6. Summarise findings

Produce a structured review summary:

```
PR Review — #<pr_number>: <title>
───────────────────────────────────────────────
Linked task: #<n> | Spec coverage: [n/n scenarios covered]

PASS  Spec adherence     — all [n] scenarios have matching tests
WARN  Contract compliance — `paymentId` field missing from response shape (Task spec: required)
PASS  Impacted Areas     — changes within declared scope
WARN  Code quality       — `processSettlement()` is 58 lines (threshold: 40)
PASS  Test coverage      — happy path + 2 error paths
FAIL  DoD                — "Observability: metrics emitted" not evidenced in diff

Verdict: REQUEST CHANGES
───────────────────────────────────────────────
Required (blocking merge):
  1. [Contract] Add `paymentId` to settlement response — Task spec requires it (Contracts §2)
  2. [DoD] Emit the `settlement_processed` metric — listed as required in Task DoD

Suggested (non-blocking):
  3. [Quality] Extract `processSettlement()` into smaller functions — currently 58 lines
```

Verdicts:
- **APPROVE** — no blocking findings
- **APPROVE WITH COMMENTS** — suggestions only, nothing blocking
- **REQUEST CHANGES** — one or more FAIL items that must be resolved before merge

### 7. Review with user

Show the summary.
Then call `AskUserQuestion` (per `../references/questioning-style.md`):
- question: "Does this look right? Should I post this as a GitHub PR review?"
- header: "Post review"
- options:
  - **Post it** → submit as a GitHub PR review comment
  - **I have edits** → adjust before posting
  - **Don't post — just the summary** → keep it in the conversation

Apply any edits, then proceed.

### 8. Post the review

Apply strict STE per `../references/ste-writing.md` before writing any durable body.

Write the review body to a temp file (`$BODY`) with the Write tool.
Then post it through the gh body helper (`../references/gh-body-helper.md`) so it survives UTF-8 on Windows:

```bash
# $BODY is the temp file you wrote the review body to with the Write tool.
python3 .wtf/gh-body.py review <pr_number> \
  --<approve|request-changes|comment> \
  --body-file "$BODY"
```

Use:
- `--approve` for APPROVE or APPROVE WITH COMMENTS
- `--request-changes` for REQUEST CHANGES
- `--comment` if the user chose "Don't post — just the summary" but then changed their mind

Print the PR URL.