Agent Skills: PR Review Workflow

Use when reviewing a GitHub PR for quality, scope correctness, trust tier compliance, or generating user-friendly review feedback.

UncategorizedID: proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/pr-review

Install this agent skill to your local

pnpm dlx add-skill https://github.com/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/tree/HEAD/assets/skills/pr-review

Skill Files

Browse the full folder contents for pr-review.

Download Skill

Loading file tree…

assets/skills/pr-review/SKILL.md

Skill Metadata

Name
pr-review
Description
"Use when reviewing a GitHub PR for quality, scope correctness, trust tier compliance, or generating user-friendly review feedback."

PR Review Workflow

Review pull requests with correct AQE scope boundaries, clear communication, and actionable feedback.

Arguments

  • <pr-number> — GitHub PR number to review. If omitted, prompt the user.

Steps

1. Read the Full Diff

gh pr diff <pr-number>
gh pr view <pr-number>

Read the complete diff and PR description. Do not skim — read every changed file.

2. Scope Check

  • Only analyze AQE/QE skills (NOT Claude Flow platform skills)
  • Platform skills to EXCLUDE: v3-, flow-nexus-, agentdb-, reasoningbank-, swarm-, github-, hive-mind-advanced, hooks-automation, iterative-loop, stream-chain, skill-builder, sparc-methodology, pair-programming, release, debug-loop
  • If the PR touches skills, verify the count/scope matches expectations (~82 AQE skills)
  • Flag any platform skill changes that may have leaked into an AQE-focused PR

3. Summarize Changes

Write a user-friendly summary of what changed and why:

  • Focus on outcomes, not implementation details
  • Avoid overly technical jargon
  • Keep it to 3-5 bullet points

4. Trust Tier Validation

For any skill changes, validate trust_tier assignments:

  • tier 3 = has eval infrastructure (evals/, schemas/, scripts/)
  • tier 2 = tested but no eval framework
  • tier 1 = untested
  • Flag inconsistencies (e.g., a skill with evals at tier 2 should be tier 3)

5. Code Quality Review

Check for:

  • Hardcoded version strings
  • Production safety concerns (adapter changes, breaking changes)
  • Missing test coverage for new code
  • Security issues (exposed secrets, injection risks)

6. Post Review

gh pr review <pr-number> --body "review comments"

Communication Rules

  • Keep tone constructive and actionable
  • Be outcome-focused: what should the author do, not what's wrong
  • Group related comments together instead of posting many small ones
  • If approving with minor suggestions, use APPROVE with comments, not REQUEST_CHANGES