review-pr

Review all files changed in this branch compared to $ARGUMENTS (default: main).

Steps

1. Determine diff range

Base branch: use $ARGUMENTS if provided, otherwise main.

git log <base>...HEAD --oneline

Read commit messages to understand the change intent.

git diff <base>...HEAD --name-only

Get the list of changed files. Skip deleted files and binary files.

2. Classify change intent

From the commit messages:

• Bug fix — corrects existing behaviour
• Feature — adds new capability
• Refactor — restructures without changing behaviour
• Chore — dependencies, config, tooling, docs

This shapes the review: bug fixes should have a regression test; refactors must not change observable behaviour; features must follow existing patterns.

3. Review each changed file

For each changed file, read its content plus the diff:

git diff <base>...HEAD -- <file>

Apply ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/claude/agents/code-reviewer.md to every file.

Weight findings toward changed lines — don't flag pre-existing issues unless they are directly relevant to the change.

4. PR-level checks

For bug fixes:

• Is there a new or updated test covering the fixed case? If not, flag as warning.
• Does the fix touch only the code needed, or does it include unrelated changes?

For refactors:

• Do the changed files have tests? If not, flag — behaviour-preserving claims are unverifiable without tests.
• Did any exported function signatures or public types change? Flag as warning — these are breaking changes.

For features:

• Does new code follow the same patterns as adjacent existing code?
• Are new endpoints or operations protected appropriately?

For all change types:

• Flag any console.log / console.error left in non-test production code.
• Flag any TODO / FIXME comments added in this diff.
• Flag hardcoded values that belong in config or env variables.

5. Log recurring patterns

After reviewing all files, pass the full review output to ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/claude/agents/issue-logger.md in Mode 1. This will update claude/rules/recurring-issues.md if any issue class appeared 3+ times in this run.

6. Output

## PR Review

**Base:** <base>...HEAD
**Change type:** {Bug fix | Feature | Refactor | Chore}
**Files reviewed:** {n}

---

{Individual review for each file using the code-reviewer output format}

---

## PR-Level Notes

### Must fix
- {critical cross-cutting issues}

### Suggestions
- {warnings spanning multiple files}

---

## Verdict
{APPROVE | REQUEST CHANGES | NEEDS DISCUSSION}

**Rationale:** {one or two sentences}

Verdict guide:

• APPROVE — no critical issues; warnings are minor or already acknowledged
• REQUEST CHANGES — one or more critical issues, or a missing regression test on a bug fix
• NEEDS DISCUSSION — the approach is questionable but you're uncertain — flag for team conversation