pr-self-review

What I do

I help you review your own pull request through a structured five-category checklist before you request external review:

1. Description Accuracy — Does the PR description match what you actually changed?
2. Scope — Are all files in the diff intentionally included? Any surprises?
3. Artifact Cleanup — Any leftover debug code, console logs, TODOs, or commented-out lines?
4. Test Coverage — Does every changed function/method have at least one test?
5. Single Concern — Could this PR be split into two separate PRs?

By catching issues before external review, you save reviewers' time and reduce review cycles.

Supporting files in this skill:

• assets/self-review-checklist.template — The five-category checklist as a markdown file you can copy into a PR comment

When to use me

Use when you want to:

• Review your own PR before requesting external review
• Catch obvious mistakes and missed artifacts before reviewers see them
• Ensure your PR is focused on a single concern
• Verify test coverage for all your changes
• Reduce back-and-forth on revision cycles

PR lifecycle focus

Stage: Author pre-review checklist (after implementation, before external review).

Use Instead [if available]

• Use pr-create when you need to draft the PR title/body before opening it.
• Use pr-review when reviewing someone else's PR as a reviewer.
• Use pr-split when the core question is whether to split a large PR.

Example usage

"Review my own PR before I request review" "Walk me through a self-review checklist" "Help me check my PR for debug code and missing tests"

---

Workflow

Here's how I guide you through self-review:

Step 1: Get the Diff

I'll ask for your PR diff or a link to the open PR if not provided in context.

Step 2: Description Check

I'll ask: Does the PR description accurately describe every file in the diff?

• Read the description you wrote
• Review the actual diff
• Flag any mismatches (e.g., "description says 'add auth', but diff also changes payment logic")

Step 3: Scope Check

I'll ask: Are all files in the diff intentionally included?

• Look for files that seem unrelated to the stated purpose
• Flag any surprises (e.g., "why is the config file changed when this is a feature PR?")
• Ask you to confirm each unexpected file is intentional

Step 4: Artifact Cleanup Check

I'll ask: Are there any obvious leftover debug artifacts? I'll flag obvious issues like:

• console.log, print, println, println! (debug output)
• debugger, pdb, debug! (breakpoints)
• .only, .skip on test cases (ensures tests run)
• Large commented-out code blocks

For TODO/FIXME comments, I'll ask: did you intend to resolve these before requesting review?

Note: Thorough artifact detection is your reviewers' job—this catches the obvious ones you might have missed.

Step 5: Test Coverage Check

I'll ask: Does every changed function/method have test coverage?

• For each changed function or method, confirm at least one test covers it
• Check that test files were also changed to add new tests
• Flag any logic changes with no corresponding tests

Step 6: Concern Focus Check

I'll ask: Is this PR focused on a single concern, or does it mix unrelated changes?

• Look for multiple distinct concerns (e.g., "auth changes + refactoring + documentation")
• Ask: "Could this be two PRs?"
• If yes, recommend splitting the PR using the /pr-split skill

Step 7: Summary

I'll summarize the findings:

• ✅ Ready to request review
• ⚠️ Minor issues to resolve before review
• ⛔ Major issues blocking external review

---

Tips for Success

• Review as a stranger would — Imagine someone unfamiliar with your code reading your diff
• Be honest about artifacts — Debug code hidden from reviewers wastes their time
• Verify test coverage manually — Don't assume tests exist; confirm they do
• Check the PR description against reality — Description drift is the most common pre-review failure
• Consider scope early — If you spot multiple concerns now, split the PR before requesting review
• Copy the checklist into your PR — Leave a visible record that you self-reviewed