Pull Request Code Review

Gather Context

Changed Files

!git diff --name-only HEAD~1 2>/dev/null || echo "No commits to diff"

Diff Summary

!git diff --stat HEAD~1 2>/dev/null || echo "No diff available"

Full Diff

!git diff HEAD~1 2>/dev/null | head -500

Recent Commits

!git log --oneline -10 2>/dev/null

---

Review Checklist

Analyze every changed file against the following categories. For each finding, provide:

• File path and line number
• Severity: Critical / High / Medium / Low
• Description of the issue
• Suggested fix with code snippet

1. Correctness

• Logic errors or off-by-one mistakes
• Missing null/undefined/nil checks
• Incomplete error handling
• Race conditions or concurrency issues
• Incorrect use of APIs or library functions

2. Security

• Input validation gaps (SQL injection, XSS, command injection, path traversal)
• Hardcoded secrets, tokens, or credentials
• Authentication/authorization bypass risks
• Insecure data handling (PII exposure, logging sensitive data)
• Missing CSRF/CORS protections where applicable

3. Performance

• N+1 query patterns
• Unnecessary loops or redundant computations
• Missing pagination for unbounded queries
• Blocking operations in async contexts
• Large memory allocations in hot paths
• Missing indexes for new database queries

4. Test Coverage

• Are new code paths covered by tests?
• Are edge cases and error paths tested?
• Are mocks appropriate and not over-mocking?
• Do test names clearly describe the scenario?

5. Code Quality

• Readability and naming clarity
• Unnecessary complexity that can be simplified
• Code duplication that should be extracted
• Dead code or unused imports
• Missing or misleading comments

6. Conventions

• Adherence to project coding standards (check CLAUDE.md)
• Consistent formatting and style
• Proper commit message format
• Documentation for public APIs

---

Output Format

Findings

Group findings by severity:

Critical (must fix before merge)

<!-- Blocking issues -->

High (strongly recommend fixing)

<!-- Significant issues -->

Medium (should fix)

<!-- Moderate issues -->

Low (nice to have)

<!-- Minor suggestions -->

Summary

Provide a 2-3 sentence executive summary of the PR quality.

Verdict

State one of:

• GO — Ready to merge (no critical/high issues)
• CONDITIONAL GO — Merge after addressing critical/high findings
• NO-GO — Significant issues require rework before re-review