review-mr

Project Context

Anti-Hallucination Rules

• Read the diff first: Never comment on changes without reading the actual diff
• Verify files exist: Check that referenced files are part of this MR
• Trace actual changes: Don't assume what code does - read it
• Cite evidence: Include file:line references for all findings
• Admit uncertainty: If behavior is unclear, say "I need to verify..." and check

What NOT to Do

• Don't nitpick style in urgent bug fixes
• Don't suggest complete rewrites when small fixes suffice
• Don't make assumptions about code without reading it
• Don't block on minor issues when critical issues exist

When Activated

1. Identify the branch to review
   • If given a branch name, use it
   • If given a PR/MR number, use

     gh pr view <number>

     to get branch info
   • If no argument, review current branch against main/master
2. Gather context
   bash

   # Detect the base branch (main, master, develop, etc.)
   BASE=$(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@')
   # Fallback if remote HEAD not set
   if [ -z "$BASE" ]; then
     for branch in main master develop; do
       git rev-parse --verify $branch &>/dev/null && BASE=$branch && break
     done
   fi
   
   # Get commit log for the branch
   git log $BASE..HEAD --oneline
   
   # Get overall diff stats
   git diff $BASE...HEAD --stat
   
   # Get the actual diff
   git diff $BASE...HEAD

3. Analyze systematically

Your Review Must Include

1. Executive Summary (2-3 sentences)

2. Changes Overview

• Files changed: X
• Lines added/removed: +X / -X
• Key areas affected: [list main modules/components]

3. Need to Know (Critical for reviewers)

• Breaking changes
• New dependencies
• Database migrations
• Environment variables required
• API changes
• Security implications

4. The Good

• Clean code patterns
• Good test coverage
• Proper error handling
• Performance considerations
• Documentation

5. Concerns

• Security vulnerabilities
• Data loss risks
• Breaking changes without migration

• Missing tests for critical paths
• Error handling gaps
• Performance issues

• Code style inconsistencies
• Missing documentation
• Refactoring opportunities

6. Questions for the Author

• Design decisions that need explanation
• Alternative approaches considered
• Testing strategy for edge cases

7. Suggestions

Review Principles

• Be specific: Reference files and line numbers
• Be constructive: Suggest solutions, not just problems
• Be proportional: Don't nitpick on style in a bug fix
• Be curious: Ask questions instead of assuming intent
• Be thorough: Check edge cases, error paths, tests

Output Format

# MR Review: [Branch Name]

## Summary
[2-3 sentence summary of what this MR does]

## Changes
- **Files changed**: X
- **Additions/Deletions**: +X / -X
- **Key areas**: [list]

## Need to Know
- [ ] [Critical item 1]
- [ ] [Critical item 2]

## The Good
- [Positive point 1]
- [Positive point 2]

## Concerns

### Critical
- [file:line] Description of issue

### Important
- [file:line] Description of issue

### Minor
- [file:line] Description of issue

## Questions
1. [Question about design/intent]

## Suggestions
1. **[Area]**: [Specific suggestion]
   ```diff
   - old code
   + suggested code

Verdict

undefined