Scope-Focused PR Review

Review pull/merge requests with discipline: validate against original requirements, prevent scope creep, and route out-of-scope findings to issues on the detected platform.

Platform detection is automatic via leyline:git-platform. Use gh for GitHub, glab for GitLab. Check session context for git_platform:.

Core Principle

A PR review validates scope compliance, not code perfection.

The goal is to validate the implementation meets its stated requirements without introducing regressions. Improvements beyond the scope belong in future PRs.

When To Use

• Before merging any feature branch
• When reviewing PRs from teammates
• To validate your own work before requesting review
• To generate a backlog of improvements discovered during review

When NOT To Use

• Preparing PRs - use pr-prep instead
• Deep code review - use pensive:unified-review
• Preparing PRs - use pr-prep instead
• Deep code review - use pensive:unified-review

Scope Classification Framework

Every finding must be classified:

Category	Definition	Action
BLOCKING	Bug, security issue, or regression introduced by this change	Must fix before merge
IN-SCOPE	Issue directly related to stated requirements	Should address in this PR
SUGGESTION	Improvement within changed code, not required	Author decides
BACKLOG	Good idea but outside PR scope	Create GitHub issue
IGNORE	Nitpick, style preference, or not worth tracking	Skip entirely

Classification Examples

BLOCKING:

• Null pointer exception in new code path
• SQL injection in new endpoint
• Breaking change to public API without migration
• Test that was passing now fails

IN-SCOPE:

• Missing error handling specified in requirements
• Feature doesn't match spec behavior
• Incomplete implementation of planned functionality

SUGGESTION:

• Better variable name in changed function
• Slightly more efficient algorithm
• Additional edge case test

BACKLOG:

• Refactoring opportunity in adjacent code
• "While we're here" improvements
• Technical debt in files touched but not changed
• Features sparked by seeing the code

IGNORE:

• Personal style preferences
• Theoretical improvements with no practical impact
• Premature optimization suggestions

Workflow

Phase 1: Establish Scope Baseline

Before looking at ANY code, understand what this PR is supposed to accomplish.

Note: Version validation (Phase 1.5) runs AFTER scope establishment but BEFORE code review. See modules/version-validation.md for details.

Search for scope artifacts in order:

1. Plan file: Most authoritative (check spec-kit locations first, then root)

   # Spec-kit feature plans (preferred - structured implementation blueprints)
   find specs -name "plan.md" -type f 2>/dev/null | head -1 | xargs cat 2>/dev/null | head -100
   # Legacy/alternative locations
   ls docs/plans/ 2>/dev/null
   # Root plan.md (may be Claude Plan Mode artifact from v2.0.51+)
   cat plan.md 2>/dev/null | head -100
   

   Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

2. Spec file: Requirements definition (check spec-kit locations first)

   find specs -name "spec.md" -type f 2>/dev/null | head -1 | xargs cat 2>/dev/null | head -100
   cat spec.md 2>/dev/null | head -100
   

   Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

3. Tasks file: Implementation checklist (check spec-kit locations first)

   find specs -name "tasks.md" -type f 2>/dev/null | head -1 | xargs cat 2>/dev/null
   cat tasks.md 2>/dev/null
   

   Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

4. PR/MR description: Author's intent

   # GitHub
   gh pr view <number> --json body --jq '.body'
   # GitLab
   glab mr view <number> --json description --jq '.description'
   

   Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

5. Commit messages: Incremental decisions

   # GitHub
   gh pr view <number> --json commits --jq '.commits[].messageHeadline'
   # GitLab
   glab mr view <number> --json commits
   

   Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Output: A clear statement of scope:

"This PR implements [feature X] as specified in plan.md. The requirements are:

1. [requirement]
2. [requirement]
3. [requirement]"

If no scope artifacts exist, flag this as a process issue but continue with PR description as the baseline.

Phase 2: Gather Changes

# GitHub
gh pr diff <number> --name-only
gh pr diff <number>
gh pr view <number> --json additions,deletions,changedFiles,commits

# GitLab
glab mr diff <number>
glab mr view <number>

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Phase 3: Requirements Validation

Before detailed code review, check scope coverage:

• Each requirement has corresponding implementation
• No requirements are missing
• Implementation doesn't exceed requirements (overengineering signal)

Phase 1.5: Version Validation (MANDATORY)

Run version validation checks BEFORE code review.

See modules/version-validation.md for detailed validation procedures.

Quick reference:

1. Check if bypass requested (--skip-version-check, label, or PR marker)
2. Detect if version files changed in PR diff
3. If changed, run project-specific validations:
   • Claude marketplace: Check marketplace.json vs plugin.json versions
   • Python: Check pyproject.toml vs version
   • Node: Check package.json vs package-lock.json
   • Rust: Check Cargo.toml vs Cargo.lock
4. Validate CHANGELOG has entry for new version
5. Check README/docs for version references
6. Classify findings as BLOCKING (or WAIVED if bypassed)

All version mismatches are BLOCKING unless explicitly waived by maintainer.

Phase 3.5: PR Hygiene Checks

Before diving into code, run the PR hygiene checks from modules/pr-hygiene.md:

1. Atomicity check: Does this PR contain one logical change? Flag mixed commit types (feat, refactor, and fix), formatting commits bundled with logic, or changes spanning unrelated subsystems. Large PRs get 30% defect detection vs 75% for focused ones.

2. Agent curation check: Does the code show signs of iterative AI generation without a cleanup pass? Look for redundant implementations, premature abstractions, incomplete refactors, and scope drift.

3. Self-review signals: Are there unsquashed fixup commits, debug statements, or commented-out code that suggest the author did not read their own diff before sending?

Classify findings per modules/pr-hygiene.md severity tables.

Phase 4: Code Review with Scope Context

Use pensive:unified-review on the changed files. For comment quality assessment, see modules/comment-guidelines.md.

Critical: Evaluate each finding against the scope baseline:

**Verification:** Run the command with `--help` flag to verify availability.
Finding: "Function X lacks input validation"
Scope check: Is input validation mentioned in requirements?
  - YES → IN-SCOPE
  - NO, but it's a security issue → BLOCKING
  - NO, and it's a nice-to-have → BACKLOG

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Phase 4.5: Additive Bias Audit

Run Skill(imbue:justify) on the PR changes to detect AI additive bias, test-logic tampering, and unnecessary complexity.

Key checks:

1. Additive bias score: flag changes with high add/delete ratio (>5:1) that lack justification
2. Iron Law compliance: verify test assertions were not weakened to match broken implementations
3. Minimal intervention: confirm each changed file was necessary and the change was the smallest fix

Classify justify findings using the scope framework:

Justify Signal	Likely Classification
Test logic tampered	BLOCKING
High additive bias, no justification	IN-SCOPE
Premature abstraction	SUGGESTION
Compatibility shim	BACKLOG

Include the additive bias score and Iron Law status in the Phase 6 report.

Phase 4.6: Invariant Conflict Detection

Check whether the PR touches existing design invariants. This is a judgment problem that models get wrong far too often: surface conflicts for human review rather than silently accepting or rejecting them.

Quick detection heuristic:

1. Do changed files cross module boundaries that previously didn't interact?
2. Do changes introduce a new pattern alongside an existing one (two ways to do the same thing)?
3. Do interface/type/schema files change shape?
4. Do data flow directions change?
5. Are ADR-documented decisions being contradicted?

# Check for structural pattern changes
git diff --name-only HEAD...origin/master 2>/dev/null \
  | rg "(interface|types|schema|model|base|core|contract)" \
  || git diff --name-only HEAD...origin/master 2>/dev/null \
  | grep -E "(interface|types|schema|model|base|core|contract)"

When a conflict is detected:

Do NOT resolve it. Add to the report as a special category:

Category	Definition	Action
INVARIANT	Change conflicts with an existing design decision	Escalate to human with 3-option analysis

For each invariant conflict, present:

1. The invariant: Name the design decision and why it was made (reference ADRs if available)
2. The conflict: What this PR does that clashes
3. Option A, Preserve: Don't merge this change; the invariant pays dividends elsewhere
4. Option B, Layer: Merge as-is, accepting inelegance; not every feature must be elegant
5. Option C, Revise: The invariant is wrong; here's what a redesign would look like

Classification: INVARIANT findings are always BLOCKING, not because the code is wrong, but because the judgment call requires human input. Only the human reviewer can decide which of the three options is right.

With --hold-insights: the same holding pattern covers every finding about the direction of the change, its architecture, or a question the diff leaves open, not only the ones that conflict with a recorded invariant. Present them in chat, then ask with the prompt Phase 5 uses for backlog issues: "I have N observations on direction and design. Post which? [y/n/select]". Post only what is selected. The rest stays in the conversation. This is the reviewer's judgment being exercised before the author sees it, which is where a question about direction belongs.

Why this matters: Bad invariant decisions compound. A few wrong calls and the codebase becomes unsalvageable. This is not a context problem solvable with better documentation: it is a judgment problem that requires human wisdom.

Phase 5: Backlog Triage

For each BACKLOG item, create an issue on the detected platform:

# GitHub
gh issue create \
  --title "[Tech Debt] Brief description" \
  --body "## Context
Identified during PR #<number> review.
..." \
  --label "tech-debt"

# GitLab
glab issue create \
  --title "[Tech Debt] Brief description" \
  --description "## Context
Identified during MR !<number> review.
..." \
  --label "tech-debt"

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Ask user before creating: "I found N backlog items. Create issues? [y/n/select]"

Phase 6: Generate Report

Structure the report by classification. Every BLOCKING and IN-SCOPE finding MUST include educational insights per modules/educational-insights.md: Why (the principle), Proof (link to best practice), and a Teachable Moment (generalized lesson). SUGGESTION findings include Why and optionally Proof. BACKLOG items need only a brief rationale.

With --concise, none of those paragraphs is posted. Each finding on a diff line becomes a suggestion block the author can apply, with a short explanation beside it only for clarification purposes. Findings with no line to anchor to appear in the summary as one line each. The full report with its educational content is still written locally, to the --local path, so nothing is lost. It is only kept off the MR. Posting patterns: modules/suggestion-comments.md.

## PR #X: Title

### Scope Compliance
**Requirements:** (from plan/spec)
1. [x] Requirement A - Implemented
2. [x] Requirement B - Implemented
3. [ ] Requirement C - **Missing**

### Blocking (1)
1. [B1] SQL injection via string concatenation
   - **Location**: `db/queries.py:89`
   - **Anchor**: `cursor.execute("SELECT * FROM t WHERE id = " + uid)`
   - **Issue**: User input interpolated directly into SQL
   - **Why**: String-interpolated SQL allows attackers to
     execute arbitrary queries (CWE-89). This is the #1
     web application vulnerability per OWASP Top 10.
   - **Proof**: [OWASP SQL Injection](https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/SQL_Injection)
   - **Teachable Moment**: Always use parameterized queries
     or an ORM. This applies everywhere user input reaches
     a database, cache, or search engine query.
   - **Fix**: Use parameterized query:
     `cursor.execute("SELECT * FROM t WHERE id = ?", (uid,))`

### In-Scope (1)
1. [S1] Missing validation for edge case
   - **Location**: `api.py:45`
   - **Anchor**: `def handle_request(payload):`
   - **Issue**: Empty input not handled per requirement
   - **Why**: Defensive validation at API boundaries
     prevents cascading failures in downstream logic.
   - **Proof**: [Postel's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle)
   - **Teachable Moment**: Validate inputs at system
     boundaries (API handlers, CLI args, file parsers)
     but trust internal function contracts.

### Suggestions (1)
1. [G1] Consider extracting helper function
   - **Why**: The repeated pattern on lines 30-35 and
     72-77 violates DRY. Extracting it reduces future
     bug surface.
   - Author's discretion

### Backlog → GitHub Issues (3)
1. #142 - Refactor authentication module
2. #143 - Add caching layer
3. #144 - Update deprecated dependency

### Recommendation
**APPROVE WITH CHANGES**
Address B1 and S1 before merge.

Local Output (--local)

When --local [path] is passed, write the Phase 6 report to a local .md file instead of posting via API. Default path: .pr-review/pr-<number>-review.md. The file includes the review summary, test plan, and backlog items in a single document. Issue creation and PR description updates are skipped. Knowledge capture (Phase 7) still runs.

Phase 7: Knowledge Capture

After generating the report, evaluate findings for knowledge capture into the project's review chamber.

Trigger: Automatically for findings scoring ≥60 on evaluation criteria.

# Capture significant findings to review-chamber
# Uses memory-palace:review-chamber evaluation framework

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Candidates for capture:

• BLOCKING findings with architectural context → decisions/
• Recurring patterns seen in multiple PRs → patterns/
• Quality standards and conventions → standards/
• Post-mortem insights and learnings → lessons/

Output: Add to report:

### Knowledge Captured 📚

| Entry ID | Title | Room |
|----------|-------|------|
| abc123 | JWT over sessions | decisions/ |
| def456 | Token refresh pattern | patterns/ |

View: `/review-room list --palace <project>`

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

See modules/knowledge-capture.md for full workflow.

Phase 8: Comprehension Loop (--interactive)

Opt-in. Skip this phase unless the reviewer passed --interactive.

Runs the socratic loop that makes the "Don't: Merge Code You Cannot Explain" anti-pattern below executable. The reviewer opens each round by stating their understanding, asking their own question, or admitting a gap. The agent answers from the diff, then probes what the opening revealed.

Each exchange is graded pass, partial, or fail and written to gauntlet's shared progress store, tagged with one of gauntlet's seven knowledge categories. The same history steers /gauntlet challenges, so review sessions and challenge sessions compound. The selector favors untested categories first and weak ones second, so a failed probe raises that category's weight only against categories you have already answered well. Grade honestly: the weak-category bonus needs accuracy strictly below 0.5, so a lone partial earns no steer.

python3 plugins/gauntlet/scripts/progress_tracker.py .gauntlet \
  --developer "$(git config user.email)" --record '<answer-record-json>'

Probe results never change the merge recommendation. They add a Comprehension section to the report from Phase 6.

Full turn order, scoring table, category mapping, and the recording contract: modules/interactive-review.md.

Quality Gates

A PR should be approved when:

• All stated requirements are implemented
• No BLOCKING issues remain
• IN-SCOPE issues are resolved or acknowledged
• BACKLOG items are tracked as GitHub issues
• Tests cover new code paths
• Tests would fail if the fix were reverted (the revert test)
• No obvious agent-generated code left uncurated
• Author can explain how each changed section works and how it could fail (understanding check, not just "tests pass")

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Don't: Scope Creep Review

"While you're here, you should also refactor X, add feature Y, and fix Z in adjacent files."

Do: Create backlog issues, keep PR focused.

Don't: Perfect is Enemy of Good

"This works but could be 5% more efficient with different approach."

Do: If it meets requirements and has no bugs, it's ready.

Don't: Blocking on Style

"I prefer tabs over spaces."

Do: Use linters for style, reserve review for logic.

Don't: Reviewing Unchanged Code

"The file you imported from has some issues..."

Do: That's a separate PR. Create an issue if important.

Don't: Tests That Prove Old Code Was Bad

"Here's a test showing the old behavior was wrong."

Do: Write tests that break if your fix is reverted. Tests should protect against regressions in your code, not document why the change was needed. See modules/pr-hygiene.md Principle 4.

Don't: Bundling Unrelated Changes

"I also reformatted the file and fixed a typo in another module."

Do: One PR = one logical change. Formatting, refactors, and unrelated fixes belong in separate PRs. See modules/pr-hygiene.md Principle 2.

Don't: Merge Code You Cannot Explain

"It works and the tests pass."

A PR where the author cannot explain how each changed section works and how it might fail is not ready to merge. This is especially true for AI-assisted code: generation speed creates the illusion of understanding.

Do: Before marking a PR ready, ask the reviewing agent to question you about the changed code: how each part works, what assumptions it makes, and what inputs would break it. Continue until you can answer without hesitation. Only merge code you own front-to-back.

This applies to self-reviews: run the same probe before requesting external review. Do not submit a PR for review that you yourself do not fully understand.

/pr-review --interactive runs this probe as a graded loop and records what you could not explain. See Phase 8 and modules/interactive-review.md.

Verify Findings Are Grounded (pr-review:findings-verified)

Write findings to .review/findings.json, run the citation verifier (Skill(imbue:review-core) Step 5), and drop or label UNVERIFIED any the verifier rejects.

Integration with Other Tools

• /fix-pr: After review identifies issues, use this to address them
• /pr: To prepare a PR before review
• pensive:unified-review: For the actual code analysis
• pensive:bug-review: For deeper bug hunting if needed
• scribe:slop-detector: For documentation AND commit message quality analysis
• scribe:doc-generator: For PR description writing guidelines (slop-free)

Slop Detection Integration

Documentation Review

For all changed .md files, invoke Skill(scribe:slop-detector):

• Score ≥ 3.0: Flag as IN-SCOPE (should remediate)
• Score ≥ 5.0: Flag as BLOCKING if --strict mode

Commit Message Review

Scan all PR commit messages for slop markers:

gh pr view <number> --json commits --jq '.commits[].messageBody' | \
  grep -iE 'leverage|seamless|comprehensive|delve|robust|utilize|facilitate'

If slop found in commits: Add to SUGGESTION category with remediation guidance.

PR Description Review

Apply scribe:slop-detector to PR body:

• Tier 1 words in description → SUGGESTION to rephrase
• Marketing phrases ("unlock potential") → Flag for removal

Exit Criteria

• Scope baseline established and recorded in the report
• Every changed file classified in-scope, out-of-scope, or blocking
• Each out-of-scope finding has a tracked issue number
• Report states one recommendation: approve, comment, or request changes
• Every BLOCKING and IN-SCOPE finding carries a Location (file:line) and verbatim Anchor, and citation_verifier.py exits 0 or the unverified findings are dropped or labeled UNVERIFIED
• With --interactive: every hunk carrying a blocking or high-risk finding was probed, or the reviewer ended the session
• With --interactive: each graded exchange appears in .gauntlet/progress/<developer>.json, and the report carries a Comprehension section whose row count matches the probes recorded
• With --concise: every finding on a diff line was posted as a suggestion block, the summary review exists, and no test plan comment or description update was posted
• With --hold-insights: every direction or architecture finding was shown in chat before posting, and only the selected ones appear on the PR

Supporting Modules

• Interactive comprehension loop - socratic probes graded and recorded to gauntlet's adaptive selector
• GitHub PR comment patterns - gh api patterns for inline and summary PR comments
• Suggestion comments - one-click suggestion blocks on GitHub and GitLab, and the --concise posting rule