Review PR

Comprehensive code review of a pull request or branch diff against its base. Unlike review-delta (quick review of uncommitted local changes), this reviews ALL commits in a branch for PR submission readiness.

Token optimization: Before starting, call help(topic="graph") for the full actions reference. Never include full files unless explicitly asked.

Steps

1. Identify the changes for the PR:

• If a PR number or branch is provided, use git diff main...<branch> to get changed files
• Otherwise auto-detect from the current branch vs main/master

1. Update the graph by calling graph(action="build", base="main") to ensure the graph reflects the current state.

1. Commit-by-commit analysis (for PRs with >3 commits):

• git log --oneline main..HEAD to list all commits
• Group related commits by area (feature, fix, refactor, test, docs)
• Verify each commit message follows Conventional Commits (type(scope): description)
• Flag commits that mix unrelated changes

1. Get the full review context by calling review(base="main"):

• Returns all changed files across all commits in the PR
• Includes impacted nodes and blast radius

1. Analyze impact by calling query(action="impact", base="main"):

• Review the blast radius across the entire PR
• Identify high-risk areas (widely depended-upon code)

1. Breaking change detection for public APIs:

• Identify exported/public functions, classes, types that changed
• Check for: removed parameters, changed return types, renamed exports, removed functions
• Use query(action="query", pattern="callers_of", target=<func>) to find all consumers
• Flag any change where callers outside the PR would break

1. Deep-dive each changed file:

• Read the full source of files with significant changes
• Use query(action="query", pattern="tests_for", target=<func>) to verify test coverage
• Check for untested new functions

1. Generate structured review output:

   ## PR Review: <title>

   ### Summary
   <1-3 sentence overview>

   ### Conventional Commits Check
   - [x] `feat(parser): add Go support` -- valid
   - [ ] `fixed stuff` -- invalid, should be `fix(scope): description`

   ### Risk Assessment
   - **Overall risk**: Low / Medium / High
   - **Blast radius**: X files, Y functions impacted
   - **Test coverage**: N changed functions covered / M total
   - **Breaking changes**: None / List of breaking changes

   ### File-by-File Review
   #### <file_path>
   - Changes: <description>
   - Impact: <who depends on this>
   - Issues: <bugs, style, concerns>

   ### Missing Tests
   - <function_name> in <file> - no test coverage found

   ### Recommendations
   1. <actionable suggestion>

Key Differences from review-delta

Tips

• For large PRs (>10 files), focus on the highest-impact files first (most dependents)
• Use query(action="search", search_query=<term>) to find related code the PR might have missed
• Check if renamed/moved functions have updated all callers