/review-pr
Review the following pull request.
$ npx -y skills add archestra-ai/archestra --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this command gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfClaude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/review-pr
Context preview
What this command does when you run it.
Review the following pull request.
Command definition
review-pr.mdReview the following pull request.
$ARGUMENTS
Focus areas
1. **Code Quality** — Clean code, error handling, edge cases, readability 2. **Security** — Injection vulnerabilities, input sanitization, auth/authz, secrets exposure 3. **Performance** — N+1 queries, unnecessary computation, memory leaks 4. **Testing** — Adequate coverage, edge cases, test quality 5. **Project conventions** — Check CLAUDE.md for coding standards 6. **Documentation** — Evaluate whether `docs/pages/` needs to be updated based on the PR changes. Read `docs/pages/` to understand what documentation exists. Changes that warrant doc updates include: new user-facing features, new or modified configuration options, changes to deployment or setup procedures, and renamed or removed concepts. Changes that typically do NOT require doc updates: bug fixes that restore existing documented behavior, internal refactors with no user-facing impact, test-only changes, and dependency bumps. If the PR introduces user-facing changes and no corresponding `docs/pages/` files were added or modified, flag this as REQUEST_CHANGES with a comment listing which existing doc pages likely need updating (or suggesting a new page if none exist). Be specific about what documentation is missing.
Guidelines
- Be concise. No filler praise.
- Use inline review comments for specific issues.
- If the PR is clean, approve with a one-line summary.
- Flag blocking issues as REQUEST_CHANGES. Use COMMENT for suggestions.
- Missing documentation for user-facing changes is a blocking issue (REQUEST_CHANGES).
- Group related issues.
Read more
Review the following pull request.
$ARGUMENTS
Focus areas
1. **Code Quality** — Clean code, error handling, edge cases, readability 2. **Security** — Injection vulnerabilities, input sanitization, auth/authz, secrets exposure 3. **Performance** — N+1 queries, unnecessary computation, memory leaks 4. **Testing** — Adequate coverage, edge cases, test quality 5. **Project conventions** — Check CLAUDE.md for coding standards 6. **Documentation** — Evaluate whether `docs/pages/` needs to be updated based on the PR changes. Read `docs/pages/` to understand what documentation exists. Changes that warrant doc updates include: new user-facing features, new or modified configuration options, changes to deployment or setup procedures, and renamed or removed concepts. Changes that typically do NOT require doc updates: bug fixes that restore existing documented behavior, internal refactors with no user-facing impact, test-only changes, and dependency bumps. If the PR introduces user-facing changes and no corresponding `docs/pages/` files were added or modified, flag this as REQUEST_CHANGES with a comment listing which existing doc pages likely need updating (or suggesting a new page if none exist). Be specific about what documentation is missing.
Guidelines
- Be concise. No filler praise.
- Use inline review comments for specific issues.
- If the PR is clean, approve with a one-line summary.
- Flag blocking issues as REQUEST_CHANGES. Use COMMENT for suggestions.
- Missing documentation for user-facing changes is a blocking issue (REQUEST_CHANGES).
- Group related issues.
Enterprise AI Platform with guardrails, MCP registry, gateway & orchestrator
Repo: archestra-ai/archestra