Pragma review

Pragma Review

Fetch and analyse Pragma's AI-generated review for a GitLab MR.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — optional MR number (integer). If omitted, detected from context.

Instructions

1. Determine the MR number:

   • If $ARGUMENTS contains an integer, use it directly as the MR number.
   • Otherwise, run glab mr view and parse the IID: field from the output.
   • If both fail, ask the user: "Which MR number would you like to review?"

2. Ensure the working tree reflects the MR source branch:

   • Run glab mr view <MR_NUMBER> and parse the Source Branch: field → <mr_branch>.
   • Run git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD → <current_branch>.
   • If <current_branch> equals <mr_branch>, continue to step 3.
   • Otherwise:
     • Record <current_branch> so it can be restored later.
     • Inform the user: "Switching to <mr_branch> to analyse MR code accurately."
     • Run glab mr checkout <MR_NUMBER> to switch to the MR branch.
     • Set a flag BRANCH_SWITCHED=true.

3. Determine the repository name:

   • Run glab mr view <MR_NUMBER> (reuse output from step 2) and parse the Project: or Web URL field to extract the repository name (e.g. pdm-db).
   • Use just the short repository name (last path segment), not the full group path.

4. Find the most recent Pragma review for this MR:

   • Call mcp__pragma__list_reviews with repository set to the repo name from step 3.
   • Filter returned entries where the filename contains _mr<MR_NUMBER>_.
   • If multiple matches exist, select the one with the latest timestamp (the timestamp appears in the filename as YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS).
   • If no matching review is found, output:

     "No Pragma review found for MR !<number> in repository <repo>." restore the original branch (step 8) and stop.

5. Fetch the full review content:

   • Call mcp__pragma__get_review with the filename selected in step 4.

6. Output Section B — High-value findings:

   Present a prioritised list of findings from the Pragma review that meet ALL of:

   • Blocking, critical, or high-severity (explicitly stated in Pragma's output, or clearly impactful based on context)
   • Non-obvious (not something a linter, type-checker, or compiler would catch)
   • Actionable (has a specific file/line reference or a concrete recommendation)

   Format:

   ## High-Value Findings (Pragma MR !<number>)
   
   1. [CRITICAL/HIGH] <finding summary> — `<file>:<line>`
      Rationale: <one sentence on why this is worth acting on>
   
   2. ...
   

   If no findings meet the criteria, state: "No high-value findings identified."

7. Output Section C — Meta-critique:

   Assess the quality of the Pragma review itself across four dimensions:

   ## Pragma Review Quality Assessment
   
   **Coverage:** <Did it address the key areas of the diff? What did it focus on?>
   **Accuracy:** <Are the findings grounded in the actual code? Any hallucinations?>
   **False positives:** <List any findings that appear incorrect or unsubstantiated>
   **Gaps:** <Important aspects of the diff that Pragma missed entirely>
   

8. Restore original branch (if switched):

   • If BRANCH_SWITCHED=true, run git checkout <current_branch>.
   • Inform the user: "Restored branch to <current_branch>."

Notes

• Be concise. Section B should rarely exceed 5 items.
• Section C should be factual, not speculative — only flag gaps you can identify from the diff or codebase context.
• Do not repeat the full Pragma review verbatim.