From Dev10x
Reviews GitHub pull requests: fetches diffs and context, reads changed files, applies review guidelines, posts inline comment reviews. For external PRs.
npx claudepluginhub dev10x-guru/dev10x-claude --plugin Dev10xThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
Review a pull request on GitHub and post findings as a review with
Creates isolated Git worktrees for feature branches with prioritized directory selection, gitignore safety checks, auto project setup for Node/Python/Rust/Go, and baseline verification.
Executes implementation plans in current session by dispatching fresh subagents per independent task, with two-stage reviews: spec compliance then code quality.
Dispatches parallel agents to independently tackle 2+ tasks like separate test failures or subsystems without shared state or dependencies.
Review a pull request on GitHub and post findings as a review with inline comments.
Accepts one of:
https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/NUMBER1293 (uses current repo)Not for self-review — use Dev10x:review to review your own
branch before creating a PR.
This skill follows references/task-orchestration.md patterns
(Tier: Standard).
Auto-advance: Complete each step and immediately start the next. Never pause between steps to ask "should I continue?".
REQUIRED: Create tasks before ANY work. Execute these
TaskCreate calls at startup:
TaskCreate(subject="Fetch PR diff", activeForm="Fetching PR context")TaskCreate(subject="Review changes", activeForm="Reviewing changes")TaskCreate(subject="Post findings", activeForm="Posting review")Set sequential dependencies: review blocked by fetch, post blocked by review.
No user decision gates — this skill runs fully automated once
invoked. All review decisions (what to flag, severity) are made by
applying review-guidelines.md and review-checks-common.md.
Extract owner, repo, and PR number from the argument. If only a number is given, use the current git remote origin.
Run in parallel:
gh pr view {N} --json title,body,baseRefName,headRefName, state,author,labels,commits,filesgh pr diff {N}gh pr view {N} --json comments — existing bot/human commentsgh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{N}/reviews — existing reviewsgh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{N}/comments — inline commentsWhy all 5? Avoids duplicating feedback from previous review cycles
(per review-guidelines.md — "NEVER repeat feedback from previous
review cycles").
For each file in the PR's file list, use the Read tool to read the file at the current HEAD of the PR's base branch. Compare with the diff to understand the full context.
Important: Read files from your local checkout. If the PR branch is not checked out locally, the diff from Step 2 is sufficient for review — do not checkout the branch.
For changed interfaces (renamed methods, changed signatures, modified DTOs):
Independent of prior review comments. Do NOT anchor on whether surface bugs from previous cycles were fixed — evaluate the PR's structural compliance from scratch.
Load project architecture rules:
CLAUDE.md — coding style, patterns, SRPcode-implementation.md (if exists)review-checks-common.md § Architecture ChecklistCheck each new or substantially modified file for:
| Signal | Violation | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| New endpoint/view with >50 lines | Missing service layer extraction | WARNING |
| View calling repository directly | Missing Service layer (View→Service→Repository) | WARNING |
| Inline dict with 4+ keys passed across boundaries | Missing DTO | INFO |
Manual request.data["field"] parsing | Missing serializer/DTO validation | WARNING |
| Function/method >50 lines | SRP violation — extract | WARNING |
Anti-pattern (anchoring bias): When previous review comments exist, the skill tends to check only whether those bugs were fixed and declare the PR "solid". This step forces an independent structural evaluation regardless of prior feedback.
Load project review guidelines from references/:
review-guidelines.md — workflow, threads, summariesreview-checks-common.md — false positive prevention.claude/agents/ based on file typesApply the False Positive Prevention Gate before drafting any inline comment:
Compose:
```suggestion
fixed code here
```
Before posting the new review, minimize previous Claude review
summaries that are fully resolved (per review-guidelines.md step 6):
isResolved and group
by pullRequestReview.databaseIdOUTDATED classifiergh api graphql with minimizeComment mutation:
mutation { minimizeComment(input: {
subjectId: "<review_node_id>", classifier: OUTDATED
}) { minimizedComment { isMinimized } } }
Skip this step on the first review (no previous summaries exist).
Use the Write tool to create the review JSON, then post via gh api --input:
/tmp/Dev10x/bin/mktmp.sh git pr-review .json
{
"event": "COMMENT",
"commit_id": "{HEAD_SHA}",
"body": "## Review Summary\n\n...",
"comments": [
{
"path": "src/file.py",
"line": 42,
"body": "Issue description\n\n```suggestion\nfix\n```"
}
]
}
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{N}/reviews \
--method POST --input <unique-path>
Do not use
cat <<'JSON' | gh api --input -— the heredoc is blocked byvalidate-bash-security.py. Always Write to a file first.
Rules:
"event": "COMMENT" — never REQUEST_CHANGES or APPROVEcommit_id from the PR's latest commitConfirm what was posted:
From review-guidelines.md and review-checks-common.md:
Dev10x:gh-pr-review
├─ Standalone review of any GitHub PR
└─ Posts findings directly to GitHub
Complements:
Dev10x:review — self-review before PR creation (no GitHub posting)Dev10x:gh-pr-respond — respond to review comments on YOUR PRDev10x:gh-pr-triage — validate a single review comment