/review-pr

name: review-pr
license: MIT
compatibility: "Claude Code 2.1.277+. Requires memory MCP server, gh CLI."
description: "PR review by parallel agents (quality, security, tests, architecture, performance) with conventional comments and an approve or request-changes verdict. Use when a pull request needs a reviewer. Not for design scores (use assess)."
argument-hint: "[pr-number-or-branch] [--post] [--post-verdict]"
user-invocable: true
allowed-tools: "SendMessage AskUserQuestion Bash Read Write Edit Grep Glob Agent Workflow TaskCreate TaskUpdate TaskStop mcp__memory__search_nodes mcp__memory__create_entities mcp__memory__add_observations ToolSearch Monitor"
skills: [code-review-playbook, testing-unit, testing-e2e, testing-integration, memory, chain-patterns]
hooks:
  PreToolUse:
    - matcher: "Bash|Monitor"
      hooks:
        - type: command
          command: "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/bin/run-hook.mjs skill/review-post-gate"
    - matcher: "Write|Edit|NotebookEdit|mcp__.*"
      hooks:
        - type: command
          command: "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/bin/run-hook.mjs skill/review-post-gate"
metadata:
  category: workflow-automation
  mcp-server: memory
  version: "1.9.0"
  author: "OrchestKit"
  complexity: "medium"
  tags: "code-review, pull-request, quality, security, testing"
triggers:
  keywords: ["review pr", "code review", reveiw, "review pull request", "review the changes", "thorough review", "review of", "look over", "check this pr", "before we merge"]
  examples:
    - "review PR 123"
    - "do a code review on this pull request"
    - "check this PR for issues before we merge"
  anti-triggers: [create pr, open pr, commit, assess, rate, implement]

Review PR

Host-neutral workflow. Invoke by skill name (`review-pr`). Claude Code slash routing, YAML hook loaders, and `.claude/chain` live in `references/claude-code.md`.

Deep code review using 6-7 parallel specialized agents.

Quick Start

review-pr 123
review-pr feature-branch

> **Opus 5.5**: Parallel agents use native adaptive thinking for deeper analysis. Complexity-aware routing matches agent model to review difficulty.

---

Argument Resolution

A pronoun target (`this`, `them`, `the above`) is read back from the conversation, announced in one line, and used: `Read("../../shared/rules/target-resolution.md")`, inline half.

Resolve the target with the script first, then review exactly that target (#3892). Read the mode and opt-in flags (`--rules`, `--standards`, `--post`, `--post-verdict`) from the arguments yourself and drop them, then run the script as one plain command (the post gate allows only simple read-only commands, so no assignment, loop or `$(...)`):

bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/resolve-target.sh <the arguments without the four flags>   # prints one JSON object: TARGET

| `kind` | Comes from | Review source | |---|---|---| | `pr` | `123`, `#123`, a PR URL, `ORCHESTKIT_PR_URL`, or the current branch's open PR (no argument) | `PR_NUMBER`; the `gh pr view/diff/checks` commands below | | `range` | `base...head` or `base..head`, e.g. `origin/main...origin/qa` | `git diff --no-ext-diff --no-textconv base...head`, `git log base..head`; skip `gh pr checks` and Phase 6 submit | | `ref` | a branch or ref that resolves | `gh pr view <ref>`: open PR, treat as `pr`; none, review `<default>...<ref>` as `range` | | `ask` | anything else, or no argument and no PR | **STOP** and `AskUserQuestion` for a PR number or ref range |

Never substitute `HEAD`, the current checkout, or its branch for a target the user did not name. On `ask`, stop and ask. State the resolved target in your first line of output, and use `PR_NUMBER` (or the range) consistently in every later command and agent prompt.

---

STEP 0: Verify User Intent with AskUserQuestion

**BEFORE creating tasks**, clarify review focus:

AskUserQuestion(
  questions=[{
    "question": "What type of review do you need?",
    "header": "Focus",
    "options": [
      {"label": "Full review (Recommended)", "description": "Security + code quality + tests + architecture"},
      {"label": "Security focus", "description": "Prioritize security vulnerabilities"},
      {"label": "Performance focus", "description": "Focus on performance implications"},
      {"label": "Quick review", "description": "High-level review, skip deep analysis"}
    ],
    "multiSelect": false
  }]
)

**The answer becomes the `focus` arg of the Phase 3 Workflow call** (the script picks the reviewers):

• **Full review** → `"full"`: security, two code-quality passes, tests, plus backend / frontend / llm-integrator for the domains in the diff
• **Security focus** → `"security"`: security-auditor plus one code-quality reviewer
• **Performance focus** → `"performance"`: the full set plus frontend-performance-engineer
• **Quick review** → `"quick"`: a single code-quality reviewer

"Ultra" mode runs outside this skill

If the user asks for an "ultra" / "deep" / "thorough" review, do not run it from here: the post gate denies `claude ultrareview` like every command off its read list, and an ultra review is user-triggered and billed. Tell the user to type `/code-review ultra <PR>` (or run `claude ultrareview <PR> --json` in their own shell), and stop. Use this skill for focused modes (security-only, perf-only), project context and the KG writeback.

> **vs built-in `/code-review`:** quick pass at a chosen depth is `/code-review <level> <pr#>` (alias `/review`); the deep project-aware audit is this skill. See "vs. the built-in `/review` and `/code-review`" below. This skill runs inline (no `context: fork`) because Claude Code drops a forked skill's frontmatter hooks (measured on 2.1.294). (#1940)

---

STEP 0b: Select Orchestration Mode

Default: **Workflow** (star, `workflows/review-fanout.js` runs Phases 3 and 4.5). Choose **Agent Teams** (mesh, reviewers cross-reference findings) or the plain **Agent tool** when the Workflow tool is unavail