PR Review Assistant

---
description: Review a pull request and provide structured feedback
allowed-tools: Bash(gh pr diff *), Bash(gh pr view *), Bash(gh pr checks *)
---

# Pull Request Review

Review the specified pull request and provide structured, actionable feedback.

## Arguments

- `$ARGUMENTS` — the PR number or URL to review

## Steps

1. Run `gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --json title,body,baseRefName,headRefName,files` to get PR metadata.
2. Run `gh pr diff $ARGUMENTS` to retrieve the full diff.
3. Run `gh pr checks $ARGUMENTS` to see CI status.
4. Analyze the diff for:
   - **Bugs**: null pointer risks, off-by-one errors, race conditions, unhandled errors
   - **Security**: injection vulnerabilities, exposed secrets, insecure defaults
   - **Performance**: N+1 queries, unnecessary re-renders, missing indexes
   - **Style**: naming inconsistencies, dead code, missing types
   - **Testing**: untested edge cases, missing assertions

## Output format

```markdown
## PR Review: <title>

### Summary
<1-2 sentence summary of what this PR does>

### Critical Issues
- [ ] **file.ts:42** — <description of bug or security issue>

### Suggestions
- **file.ts:17** — Consider using `Map` instead of plain object for better key semantics
- **file.ts:85** — This function exceeds 60 lines; extract the validation logic

### Positive Notes
- Good test coverage for the auth flow
- Clean separation of concerns in the service layer

### Verdict
🟢 Approve / 🟡 Approve with suggestions / 🔴 Request changes
```

## Rules

- Be specific: always reference file names and line numbers.
- Distinguish blocking issues from nice-to-have suggestions.
- Acknowledge good patterns — reviews should not be purely negative.
- Do not suggest stylistic changes that contradict the project's existing conventions.