Review pr

Skill Imran-ml/claude-skills/.claude/skills/review-pr

Reusable Claude Code configuration repository with skills, subagents, hooks, MCP setup, and examples for bootstrapping new projects.

Install

npx -y skills add Imran-ml/claude-skills --skill review-pr

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use this skill when the user wants to review a pull request, check a PR for issues, or get feedback on a GitHub PR. Triggered by "review PR", "check PR", "review pull request", or "/review-pr <number>".

SKILL.md

1.8 KB, 378 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Pull Request Review

Perform a thorough code review of the pull request.

PR Details

!gh pr list --limit 5

Instructions

Fetch the PR diff:
```
gh pr diff $ARGUMENTS
```
Or if no number given, use the current branch:
```
git diff main...HEAD
```
Also fetch PR metadata:
```
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS
```
Review the following areas:

Code Quality

Logic errors or edge cases
Code duplication (DRY violations)
Overly complex functions (> 50 lines)
Unused imports, variables, dead code

Security

Hardcoded secrets or credentials
SQL injection, XSS, command injection risks
Improper authentication/authorization
Insecure dependencies

Performance

N+1 query problems
Unnecessary re-renders (React)
Missing indexes for new queries
Large synchronous operations

Testing

Are new features tested?
Are edge cases covered?
Are tests actually testing the right thing?

Documentation

Are public APIs documented?
Is the PR description clear?
Are breaking changes noted?

Output Format

Provide a structured review:

## Summary
[1-2 sentence overview]

## ✅ What's Good
- [positive point]

## ⚠️  Issues

### Critical (must fix)
- [file:line] — [description]

### Important (should fix)
- [file:line] — [description]

### Minor (consider fixing)
- [file:line] — [description]

## 💡 Suggestions
- [optional improvements]

## Verdict: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / COMMENT

$ARGUMENTS