Files
leo-claude-mktplace/plugins/pr-review/commands/pr-review.md
lmiranda e5ca804692 feat: v3.0.0 architecture overhaul
- Rename marketplace to lm-claude-plugins
- Move MCP servers to root with symlinks
- Add 6 PR tools to Gitea MCP (list_pull_requests, get_pull_request,
  get_pr_diff, get_pr_comments, create_pr_review, add_pr_comment)
- Add clarity-assist plugin (prompt optimization with ND accommodations)
- Add git-flow plugin (workflow automation)
- Add pr-review plugin (multi-agent review with confidence scoring)
- Centralize configuration docs
- Update all documentation for v3.0.0

BREAKING CHANGE: MCP server paths changed, marketplace renamed

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-01-20 16:56:53 -05:00

140 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown

# /pr-review - Full Multi-Agent Review
## Purpose
Conduct a comprehensive pull request review using specialized agents for security, performance, maintainability, and test coverage.
## Usage
```
/pr-review <pr-number> [--repo owner/repo]
```
## Behavior
### Step 1: Fetch PR Data
Using Gitea MCP tools:
1. `get_pull_request` - PR metadata
2. `get_pr_diff` - Code changes
3. `get_pr_comments` - Existing discussion
### Step 2: Dispatch to Agents
The coordinator dispatches review tasks to specialized agents:
```
PR Review: #123 - Add user authentication
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dispatching to review agents:
├─ Security Reviewer → analyzing...
├─ Performance Analyst → analyzing...
├─ Maintainability Auditor → analyzing...
└─ Test Validator → analyzing...
```
### Step 3: Aggregate Findings
Collect findings from all agents, each with:
- Category (security, performance, maintainability, tests)
- Severity (critical, major, minor, suggestion)
- Confidence score (0.0 - 1.0)
- File and line reference
- Description
- Suggested fix (if applicable)
### Step 4: Filter by Confidence
Only display findings with confidence >= 0.5:
| Confidence | Label | Description |
|------------|-------|-------------|
| 0.9 - 1.0 | HIGH | Definite issue, must address |
| 0.7 - 0.89 | MEDIUM | Likely issue, should address |
| 0.5 - 0.69 | LOW | Possible concern, consider addressing |
| < 0.5 | (suppressed) | Too uncertain to report |
### Step 5: Generate Report
```
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
PR Review Report: #123
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
Summary:
Files changed: 12
Lines added: 234
Lines removed: 45
Findings: 8 total
🔴 Critical: 1
🟠 Major: 2
🟡 Minor: 3
💡 Suggestions: 2
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
CRITICAL FINDINGS
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
[SEC-001] SQL Injection Vulnerability (Confidence: 0.95)
File: src/api/users.ts:45
Category: Security
The query uses string interpolation without parameterization:
```ts
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;
```
Suggested fix:
```ts
const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?';
db.query(query, [userId]);
```
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
MAJOR FINDINGS
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
[PERF-001] N+1 Query Pattern (Confidence: 0.82)
...
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
VERDICT
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
❌ REQUEST_CHANGES
This PR has 1 critical security issue that must be addressed
before merging. See SEC-001 above.
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
```
### Step 6: Submit Review (Optional)
```
Submit this review to Gitea?
1. Yes, with REQUEST_CHANGES
2. Yes, as COMMENT only
3. No, just show me the report
```
If yes, use `create_pr_review` MCP tool.
## Output
Full review report with:
- Summary statistics
- Findings grouped by severity
- Code snippets with context
- Suggested fixes
- Overall verdict
## Configuration
| Variable | Default | Description |
|----------|---------|-------------|
| `PR_REVIEW_CONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD` | `0.5` | Minimum confidence to report |
| `PR_REVIEW_AUTO_SUBMIT` | `false` | Auto-submit to Gitea |