name: vi-code-review
description: "Automate GitHub pull request code reviews using gh: check eligibility (not closed/draft/trivial/already-reviewed), collect relevant AGENTS.md guidance, review changes from multiple perspectives, confidence-score issues, and post a concise PR comment with full-SHA code links."

GitHub PR Code Review (gh)

Provide a structured code review for a GitHub pull request using the GitHub CLI (gh).

Prerequisites

• gh installed and authenticated (gh auth status)
• Run inside a git repo with the PR remote configured

Workflow

1. Create an update_plan checklist for the steps below.

2. Identify the PR:

3. If the user provides a PR URL/number, use that.

4. Otherwise, infer the current PR (gh pr view) or ask which PR to review.

5. Eligibility check (skip if not eligible):

6. PR is closed/merged
7. PR is a draft
8. PR is trivial/automated (e.g. dependency-bump bot PRs, mechanical version bumps) and obviously OK

9. PR already has a code review from you (check existing comments)

10. Gather review context:

11. Fetch PR summary + files changed (gh pr view)
12. Fetch diff (gh pr diff)

13. Collect relevant guidance files:

    • Root AGENTS.md (if present)
    • Any AGENTS.md in directories containing modified files
    • If none exist, proceed without them

14. Review from multiple perspectives (do separate passes; avoid nitpicks):

15. Guidance compliance: Does the change violate relevant AGENTS.md instructions?
16. Shallow bug scan: Obvious correctness issues visible in the diff (focus on big bugs).
17. Historical context: Use git blame / history on modified files for relevant pitfalls/regressions.
18. Related PR context: Look for prior PRs touching the same files and reuse relevant lessons (optional; only if easy via gh).

19. Comment intent: Ensure changes comply with important code comments in modified files.

20. For each potential issue, assign a confidence score (0–100):

21. 0: False positive or clearly pre-existing
22. 25: Might be real but can’t verify; stylistic and not explicitly required by guidance
23. 50: Real but minor/nitpick or unlikely to matter
24. 75: Very likely real and important; or explicitly mentioned by guidance
25. 100: Definitely real; strong evidence it will occur frequently or break functionality

Filter out issues with score < 80.

1. Re-check eligibility (PR can change while you review): still open, not draft, still needs review.

2. Comment on the PR with the result using gh pr comment.

3. Keep it brief; avoid emojis.
4. Cite each issue with a link to the exact code location using full SHA and a line range:
   https://github.com/<owner>/<repo>/blob/<full-sha>/<path>#L<start>-L<end>

Comment Format

If issues exist (score ≥ 80):

### Code review

Found N issues:

1. <brief description> (<guidance or evidence>)

<full-sha link>

If no issues meet the threshold:

### Code review

No issues found. Checked for bugs and guidance compliance.

Review Boundaries

• Do not run builds/typechecks/linters just for review; assume CI will handle it.
• Ignore pre-existing problems not introduced by the PR.
• Avoid pedantic formatting/style nits unless explicitly required by a relevant guidance file.