5.1 KiB
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:
[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]
- [Question about design choice]
- [Question about edge case handling]
- [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]
- Code Quality
- Correctness
- Testing
- Security
- Performance
- Backward Compatibility
- 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/.