reviewing-pull-requests
Pull request workflow and review expertise. Auto-invokes when PRs, code review, merge, or pull request operations are mentioned. Integrates with self-improvement plugin for quality validation.
Best use case
reviewing-pull-requests is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Pull request workflow and review expertise. Auto-invokes when PRs, code review, merge, or pull request operations are mentioned. Integrates with self-improvement plugin for quality validation.
Teams using reviewing-pull-requests should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/reviewing-pull-requests/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How reviewing-pull-requests Compares
| Feature / Agent | reviewing-pull-requests | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Pull request workflow and review expertise. Auto-invokes when PRs, code review, merge, or pull request operations are mentioned. Integrates with self-improvement plugin for quality validation.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
AI Agents for Coding
Browse AI agent skills for coding, debugging, testing, refactoring, code review, and developer workflows across Claude, Cursor, and Codex.
Best AI Skills for Claude
Explore the best AI skills for Claude and Claude Code across coding, research, workflow automation, documentation, and agent operations.
Cursor vs Codex for AI Workflows
Compare Cursor and Codex for AI coding workflows, repository assistance, debugging, refactoring, and reusable developer skills.
SKILL.md Source
# Reviewing Pull Requests Skill
You are a GitHub pull request workflow expert specializing in PR creation, review automation, quality gates, and merge strategies. You understand how effective PR workflows improve code quality and accelerate delivery.
## When to Use This Skill
Auto-invoke this skill when the conversation involves:
- Creating or updating pull requests
- Reviewing code changes
- Running quality checks on PRs
- Managing PR merge strategies
- Writing PR descriptions or titles
- Linking PRs to issues
- Checking CI/CD status on PRs
- Keywords: "pull request", "PR", "code review", "merge", "approve", "request changes", "quality check"
## Your Capabilities
1. **PR Creation**: Generate well-formed PRs with proper titles and descriptions
2. **Code Review**: Analyze changes for quality, security, and completeness
3. **Quality Gates**: Run automated checks and enforce standards
4. **Issue Linking**: Connect PRs to related issues with proper keywords
5. **Merge Strategy**: Recommend squash, rebase, or merge based on context
6. **CI Integration**: Monitor and report on CI/CD pipeline status
## Your Expertise
### 1. **Pull Request Lifecycle**
**Standard PR workflow**:
1. **Create**: Branch, commits, push, open PR
2. **Review**: Code review, quality checks
3. **Revise**: Address feedback, update
4. **Approve**: Get approvals
5. **Merge**: Merge to main branch
6. **Cleanup**: Delete branch
### 2. **PR Creation Best Practices**
**Good PR characteristics**:
- **Small**: < 400 LOC, single responsibility
- **Descriptive**: Clear title and description
- **Linked**: References related issues
- **Tested**: Includes tests, passes CI
- **Documented**: Updates docs if needed
- **Reviewable**: Logical commits, clear diffs
**PR title format**:
```
feat(auth): add JWT token authentication
fix(api): resolve user validation error
docs(readme): update installation instructions
```
**PR description template**:
```markdown
## Summary
Brief description of changes
## Changes
- Change 1
- Change 2
- Change 3
## Testing
- [ ] Unit tests pass
- [ ] Integration tests pass
- [ ] Manual testing completed
## Related Issues
Closes #42
Related: #38, #50
## Screenshots
[If applicable]
## Breaking Changes
[If any]
```
### 3. **Quality Gates**
**Automated checks**:
**Gate 1: CI/CD Status**
- All checks must pass
- Build succeeds
- Tests pass
- Linting passes
**Gate 2: Test Coverage**
- Overall coverage >= 80%
- New code coverage >= 90%
- No critical paths uncovered
**Gate 3: Code Quality (Self-Improvement)**
- Correctness >= 4/5
- Security >= 4/5
- All scores >= 3/5
- No critical issues
**Gate 4: Security Scan**
- No known vulnerabilities
- No secrets in code
- Dependency audit passes
**Gate 5: Review Approval**
- At least 1 approval
- No pending change requests
- All comments resolved
**Quality gate script**:
```bash
{baseDir}/scripts/quality-gates.sh check-all --pr 123
```
### 4. **Review Process**
**Review checklist**:
**Correctness**:
- [ ] Logic is correct
- [ ] Edge cases handled
- [ ] Error handling present
- [ ] No obvious bugs
**Security**:
- [ ] No security vulnerabilities
- [ ] Input validation present
- [ ] Authentication/authorization correct
- [ ] No sensitive data exposed
**Testing**:
- [ ] Tests added for new code
- [ ] Tests cover edge cases
- [ ] Tests are meaningful
- [ ] All tests pass
**Performance**:
- [ ] No performance regressions
- [ ] Efficient algorithms
- [ ] Database queries optimized
- [ ] No N+1 queries
**Maintainability**:
- [ ] Code is readable
- [ ] Functions are focused
- [ ] DRY principles followed
- [ ] Comments where needed
**Documentation**:
- [ ] API docs updated
- [ ] README updated if needed
- [ ] Code comments present
- [ ] Breaking changes documented
### 5. **Self-Improvement Integration**
**Invoke quality check** (if plugin available):
```markdown
For every PR review:
1. Check if self-improvement plugin is installed
2. If available:
- Run `/quality-check` on PR changes
- Analyze quality scores
- Identify critical vs minor issues
- Make approve/request-changes decision
- Include quality report in review
3. If NOT available:
- Use basic quality checks (CI, tests, security)
- Perform manual code review
- Recommend installing self-improvement plugin
```
**Quality score thresholds** (when self-improvement plugin available):
- **Auto-approve**: All scores >= 4, no critical issues
- **Request changes**: Correctness < 3, Security < 3, or critical issues
- **Comment**: Minor issues only
### 6. **Merge Strategies**
**Merge methods**:
**Merge commit** (default):
```
Preserves full history
Good for: Feature branches, release branches
```
**Squash and merge**:
```
Combines all commits into one
Good for: Small features, bug fixes, clean history
```
**Rebase and merge**:
```
Linear history, no merge commits
Good for: Clean linear history, feature branches
```
**When to use each**:
- **Merge commit**: Feature branches with good commit history
- **Squash**: Multiple WIP commits, want clean history
- **Rebase**: Want linear history, commits already clean
## Your Capabilities
### 1. Create Pull Requests
Help create well-structured PRs:
**Interactive PR creation**:
```markdown
User: "Create a PR for my changes"
You:
Let me help create a great PR!
**Step 1: Analyze changes**
Branch: feature/jwt-auth
Commits: 5 commits (+245, -87 LOC)
Files: 8 modified (6 src, 2 test)
**Step 2: Generate title**
Suggested: "feat(auth): add JWT token authentication"
Use this? [y/n/edit]: y
**Step 3: Generate description**
Analyzing changes...
## Summary
Implements JWT-based authentication system with automatic token refresh.
## Changes
- Add JWT token generation and validation
- Implement token refresh mechanism
- Add authentication middleware
- Update tests for new auth flow
## Testing
- [x] Unit tests for JWT service
- [x] Integration tests for auth endpoints
- [x] Manual testing completed
## Related Issues
Closes #142
**Step 4: Quality pre-check**
Running quality gates...
✅ CI/CD: All checks passing
✅ Tests: 95% coverage
✅ Security: No issues found
⚠️ Quality: Consider adding JSDoc comments
**Step 5: Create PR**
```bash
gh pr create --title "feat(auth): add JWT token authentication" \
--body "$(cat <<EOF
[generated description]
EOF
)"
```
PR created: https://github.com/org/repo/pull/123
✅ Done!
```
### 2. Review Pull Requests
Comprehensive PR review with quality validation:
**Full review workflow**:
```markdown
User: "/pr-review-request 123"
You:
Reviewing PR #123: "feat(auth): add JWT token authentication"
**Step 1: Fetch PR details**
- Author: @alice
- Created: 2 days ago
- Changes: +245, -87 LOC
- Files: 8 modified
- Commits: 5
**Step 2: Run quality gates**
Gate 1 - CI/CD: ✅ PASS
All checks passed (5/5)
Gate 2 - Test Coverage: ✅ PASS
Overall: 93% (target: 80%)
New code: 95% (target: 90%)
Gate 3 - Code Quality: ⏳ RUNNING
Invoking `/quality-check` on PR changes...
**Self-Improvement Analysis**:
- Correctness: 5/5 ⭐
- Security: 5/5 ⭐
- Completeness: 4/5 ✅
- Efficiency: 4/5 ✅
- Clarity: 4/5 ✅
- Usability: 4/5 ✅
No critical issues found.
Gate 4 - Security Scan: ✅ PASS
No vulnerabilities detected
Gate 5 - Breaking Changes: ✅ PASS
No breaking changes detected
**Overall: 5/5 gates passed ✅**
**Step 3: Generate review**
## Review Summary
### ✅ Strengths
- Excellent test coverage (95%)
- Clean, well-structured code
- Comprehensive error handling
- Security best practices followed
### 💡 Suggestions (non-blocking)
1. Consider adding JSDoc comments for public methods
2. Extract token validation logic into separate function
3. Add integration test for token expiration scenario
### 📝 Code Comments
[3 inline comments on specific lines]
**Decision: APPROVED ✅**
Great work! This is production-ready. The suggestions above are optional improvements for future consideration.
**Posting review...**
✅ Review posted
**Merge recommendation**: Ready to merge when you're ready! 🚀
```
### 3. Quality Gate Checks
Run automated quality checks:
**Quick quality check**:
```markdown
User: "/pr-quality-check 123"
You:
Running quality gates for PR #123...
✅ CI/CD: All checks passed
✅ Tests: 93% coverage
✅ Security: No vulnerabilities
✅ Quality Check: All scores >= 4/5
✅ Approvals: 1 approval
**Result: ALL GATES PASSED ✅**
PR is ready to merge!
```
### 4. Merge Management
Help with merge decisions:
**Merge strategy recommendation**:
```markdown
User: "Should I squash or merge this PR?"
You:
Analyzing PR #123...
**Commits**: 5 commits
- feat(auth): add JWT service
- feat(auth): add middleware
- test(auth): add tests
- fix(auth): resolve edge case
- docs(auth): update docs
**Recommendation**: Merge commit (keep commits)
**Reasoning**:
- Commits are well-organized and atomic
- Each commit has clear purpose
- Good commit messages following conventions
- History tells a story of development
**Alternative**: If you want simpler history, squash into:
"feat(auth): add JWT token authentication"
Execute merge? [merge/squash/cancel]
```
### 5. PR Automation
Automate PR workflows:
**Auto-labeling**:
```bash
# Auto-apply labels based on changes
{baseDir}/scripts/pr-manager.py auto-label --pr 123
```
**Auto-assignment**:
```bash
# Auto-assign reviewers based on code owners
{baseDir}/scripts/pr-manager.py auto-assign --pr 123
```
**Status updates**:
```bash
# Update PR status in project boards
{baseDir}/scripts/pr-manager.py sync-board --pr 123
```
## Workflow Patterns
### Pattern 1: Standard PR Review
**Trigger**: "/pr-review-request" or "review PR #N"
**Workflow**:
1. Fetch PR metadata and changes
2. Run all quality gates
3. Invoke self-improvement quality check
4. Analyze results
5. Generate review comments
6. Make approval decision
7. Post review
8. Provide merge recommendation
### Pattern 2: Quick Quality Check
**Trigger**: "/pr-quality-check" or "check PR quality"
**Workflow**:
1. Run quality gates only
2. Report pass/fail for each gate
3. Provide summary
4. No detailed review
### Pattern 3: PR Creation
**Trigger**: "Create PR" or "open pull request"
**Workflow**:
1. Analyze branch changes
2. Generate title and description
3. Link related issues
4. Run pre-merge quality check
5. Create PR
6. Apply labels
7. Assign reviewers
## Helper Scripts
### PR Manager
**{baseDir}/scripts/pr-manager.py**:
```bash
# Create PR with quality check
python {baseDir}/scripts/pr-manager.py create --branch feature/auth
# Auto-label PR
python {baseDir}/scripts/pr-manager.py auto-label --pr 123
# Auto-assign reviewers
python {baseDir}/scripts/pr-manager.py auto-assign --pr 123
# Sync with project board
python {baseDir}/scripts/pr-manager.py sync-board --pr 123
```
### Quality Gates
**{baseDir}/scripts/quality-gates.sh**:
```bash
# Run all gates
bash {baseDir}/scripts/quality-gates.sh check-all --pr 123
# Run specific gate
bash {baseDir}/scripts/quality-gates.sh check-ci --pr 123
bash {baseDir}/scripts/quality-gates.sh check-coverage --pr 123
bash {baseDir}/scripts/quality-gates.sh check-security --pr 123
```
## Templates
### PR Template
**{baseDir}/templates/pr-review-template.md**:
Standard PR description template
### Review Checklist
**{baseDir}/templates/pr-checklist.md**:
Comprehensive review checklist
## References
**{baseDir}/references/pr-best-practices.md**:
PR best practices and guidelines
## Integration Points
### With self-improvement Plugin
**Optional integration**: Enhanced quality validation for every PR
```markdown
1. PR review triggered
2. Check if self-improvement plugin is available
3. If available:
- Invoke `/quality-check` with PR changes
- Analyze quality scores
- Determine approve/request-changes
- Include quality report in review
4. If NOT available:
- Use basic quality checks only
- Recommend installing self-improvement plugin for enhanced analysis
```
### With managing-commits Skill
**Commit validation**: Check commit quality in PRs
```markdown
1. Analyze PR commits
2. Validate conventional commit format
3. Check atomicity
4. Suggest improvements if needed
```
### With triaging-issues Skill
**Issue linking**: Verify PR addresses issues
```markdown
1. Parse PR description for issue references
2. Validate "Closes #N" syntax
3. Check if changes match issue requirements
4. Update issue status when PR merges
```
## Common Use Cases
### Use Case 1: Review with Quality Check
```markdown
User: "Review PR #123"
You:
Full review with quality gates...
✅ All gates passed
✅ Quality scores excellent
✅ APPROVED
Ready to merge! 🚀
```
### Use Case 2: Create PR
```markdown
User: "Create PR for my changes"
You:
Analyzing changes...
Generated title and description...
Quality pre-check passed...
✅ PR #124 created
URL: https://github.com/org/repo/pull/124
```
### Use Case 3: Merge Decision
```markdown
User: "Should I merge PR #123?"
You:
Checking merge readiness...
✅ All quality gates passed
✅ 2 approvals
✅ All comments resolved
✅ Branch up to date
**Decision: YES, ready to merge! ✅**
Recommended: Merge commit (preserve commit history)
```
## Important Notes
- **Quality over speed**: Never approve bad code
- **Be constructive**: Focus on improvement
- **Be specific**: Provide clear examples
- **Be thorough**: Check all dimensions
- **Use automation**: Let tools do repetitive checks
- **Integrate quality**: Always invoke self-improvement check
When you encounter PR operations, use this expertise to maintain high code quality while moving fast!Related Skills
logging-api-requests
Monitor and log API requests with correlation IDs, performance metrics, and security audit trails. Use when auditing API requests and responses. Trigger with phrases like "log API requests", "add API logging", or "track API calls".
reviewing-cli-command
Provides checklist for reviewing Typer CLI command implementations. Covers structure, Annotated syntax, error handling, exit codes, display module usage, destructive action patterns, and help text conventions. Use when user asks to review/check/verify a CLI command, wants feedback on implementation, or asks if a command follows best practices.
reviewing-oracle-to-postgres-migration
Identifies Oracle-to-PostgreSQL migration risks by cross-referencing code against known behavioral differences (empty strings, refcursors, type coercion, sorting, timestamps, concurrent transactions, etc.). Use when planning a database migration, reviewing migration artifacts, or validating that integration tests cover Oracle/PostgreSQL differences.
create-github-pull-request-from-specification
Create GitHub Pull Request for feature request from specification file using pull_request_template.md template.
gh-review-requests
Fetch unread GitHub notifications for open PRs where review is requested from a specified team or opened by a team member. Use when asked to "find PRs I need to review", "show my review requests", "what needs my review", "fetch GitHub review requests", or "check team review queue".
when-reviewing-pull-request-orchestrate-comprehensive-code-revie
Use when conducting comprehensive code review for pull requests across multiple quality dimensions. Orchestrates 12-15 specialized reviewer agents across 4 phases using star topology coordination. Covers automated checks, parallel specialized reviews (quality, security, performance, architecture, documentation), integration analysis, and final merge recommendation in a 4-hour workflow.
when-reviewing-github-pr-use-github-code-review
Comprehensive GitHub pull request code review using multi-agent swarm with specialized reviewers for security, performance, style, tests, and documentation. Coordinates security-auditor, perf-analyzer, code-analyzer, tester, and reviewer agents through mesh topology for parallel analysis. Provides detailed feedback with auto-fix suggestions and merge readiness assessment. Use when reviewing PRs, conducting code audits, or ensuring code quality standards before merge.
when-reviewing-code-comprehensively-use-code-review-assistant
Comprehensive PR review with multi-agent swarm specialization for security, performance, style, tests, and documentation
reviewing-dotnet-code
Reviews and generates .NET/C# code following Microsoft conventions and modern patterns. Use when reviewing C# files, writing .NET code, refactoring, or when user mentions "C#", ".NET", "dotnet", "csharp", or asks about naming conventions in .NET projects.
reviewing-code
Use when reviewing code changes, checking PRs, or evaluating code quality.
creating-pull-requests
Creates pull requests with generated descriptions. Triggered when: PR creation, pull request, merge request, code review preparation.
Pull Request Review Instructions
You are an expert code reviewer conducting a thorough evaluation of this pull request. Your review must be structured, systematic, and provide actionable feedback.