Initial commit

skills/pr-review/templates/review-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,274 @@
+# Pull Request Review: [PR Title]
+
+**PR**: [org/repo#number]
+**Author**: [author]
+**Reviewed**: [date]
+**Reviewers**: Claude Code PR Review
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+[1-3 sentence summary of the PR and overall assessment]
+
+**Recommendation**: [Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]
+
+**Statistics**:
+- Files changed: [count]
+- Lines added: [+count]
+- Lines removed: [-count]
+- Commits: [count]
+
+---
+
+## Unaddressed Comments
+
+[If there are unaddressed review comments from other reviewers, list them here with context]
+
+### Comment from [reviewer] on [file:line]
+> [Quote the comment]
+
+**Status**: Unaddressed - [No response / No code changes / Needs clarification]
+
+[Repeat for each unaddressed comment]
+
+[If no unaddressed comments: "No unaddressed comments from other reviewers."]
+
+---
+
+## Critical Findings
+
+[Issues that MUST be fixed before merge]
+
+### [Title of Issue]
+**Location**: `[file:line]`
+**Severity**: Critical
+
+**Issue**:
+[Clear description of what's wrong]
+
+**Impact**:
+[Why this is critical - security risk, data loss, breaking change, etc.]
+
+**Recommendation**:
+[How to fix it - be specific]
+
+**Example**:
+```[language]
+[Show problematic code if helpful]
+```
+
+[Repeat for each critical finding]
+
+[If no critical findings: "No critical issues found."]
+
+---
+
+## High Priority Findings
+
+[Significant issues that should be fixed before merge]
+
+### [Title of Issue]
+**Location**: `[file:line]`
+**Severity**: High
+
+**Issue**:
+[What's wrong]
+
+**Impact**:
+[Why this matters]
+
+**Recommendation**:
+[How to fix it]
+
+[Repeat for each high priority finding]
+
+[If no high priority findings: "No high priority issues found."]
+
+---
+
+## Medium Priority Findings
+
+[Issues that should be addressed but don't block merge]
+
+### [Title of Issue]
+**Location**: `[file:line]`
+**Severity**: Medium
+
+**Issue**:
+[What could be improved]
+
+**Impact**:
+[Why this matters for code quality/maintainability]
+
+**Recommendation**:
+[Suggested improvements]
+
+[Repeat for each medium finding]
+
+[If no medium findings: "No medium priority issues found."]
+
+---
+
+## Low Priority Findings
+
+[Suggestions and minor improvements]
+
+### [Title of Issue]
+**Location**: `[file:line]`
+**Severity**: Low
+
+**Suggestion**:
+[Optional improvement or style suggestion]
+
+[Can group multiple low-severity items together]
+
+[If no low findings: "No low priority suggestions."]
+
+---
+
+## Positive Observations
+
+[Highlight what's done well - this is important for constructive reviews!]
+
+- [Something done well]
+- [Good pattern or approach]
+- [Excellent test coverage]
+- [Clear documentation]
+- [etc.]
+
+---
+
+## Testing Assessment
+
+**Test Coverage**: [Excellent / Good / Adequate / Insufficient / None]
+
+**Findings**:
+- [Assessment of test quality and coverage]
+- [Are tests sufficient for the changes?]
+- [Edge cases covered?]
+- [Test quality adequate?]
+
+---
+
+## Documentation Assessment
+
+**Documentation**: [Complete / Adequate / Incomplete / None]
+
+**Findings**:
+- [Are docs updated for user-facing changes?]
+- [API documentation adequate?]
+- [Code comments where needed?]
+- [Breaking changes documented?]
+
+---
+
+## Backward Compatibility Assessment
+
+**Compatibility**: [Fully Compatible / Compatible with Deprecation / Breaking Changes]
+
+**Findings**:
+- [API changes analysis]
+- [Database migration safety]
+- [Configuration compatibility]
+- [Deprecation handling]
+
+[If breaking changes:]
+**Breaking Changes**:
+- [List each breaking change]
+- [Justification for breaking change]
+- [Migration path provided?]
+
+---
+
+## Performance Considerations
+
+**Performance Impact**: [Positive / Neutral / Negative / Needs Investigation]
+
+**Findings**:
+- [Any performance improvements or regressions]
+- [Algorithm efficiency]
+- [Database query optimization]
+- [Resource usage]
+
+---
+
+## Security Assessment
+
+**Security**: [No Issues / Minor Concerns / Significant Issues]
+
+**Findings**:
+- [Input validation adequate?]
+- [Authentication/authorization correct?]
+- [No exposed secrets?]
+- [Dependencies safe?]
+
+---
+
+## Detailed Review Notes
+
+[Optional section for additional context, questions, or detailed analysis]
+
+### [File Name]
+
+[Detailed notes about specific files if needed]
+
+---
+
+## Questions for Author
+
+[Any clarifying questions about the implementation]
+
+1. [Question about design choice]
+2. [Question about edge case handling]
+3. [etc.]
+
+---
+
+## Follow-up Items
+
+[Issues that could be addressed in follow-up PRs]
+
+- [ ] [Follow-up item 1]
+- [ ] [Follow-up item 2]
+- [ ] [etc.]
+
+---
+
+## Final Recommendation
+
+**Decision**: [Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]
+
+**Rationale**:
+[Explain the recommendation based on findings]
+
+**Next Steps**:
+[What should happen next - fixes needed, discussion required, etc.]
+
+---
+
+## Appendix
+
+### Review Checklist Applied
+
+[Optional: Note which checklist areas were reviewed]
+
+- [x] Code Quality
+- [x] Correctness
+- [x] Testing
+- [x] Security
+- [x] Performance
+- [x] Backward Compatibility
+- [x] Documentation
+
+### Files Reviewed
+
+[List of all files examined during review]
+
+- `[file path]`
+- `[file path]`
+- ...
+
+---
+
+*This review was conducted using the PR Review skill for Claude Code. For questions or to customize review criteria, edit the skill in `.claude/skills/pr-review/`.*