# Orchestrate Comprehensive PR Reviews

Large pull requests are hard to review consistently across quality, security, testing, and deployment concerns. This skill provides a structured multi-agent review workflow with clear gates, findings, and merge recommendations.

## Install

```bash
npx skillstore add dnyoussef/when-reviewing-pull-request-orchestrate-comprehensive-code-review
```

## Metadata

- Status: approved
- Slug: dnyoussef-when-reviewing-pull-request-orchestrate-comprehensive-code-review
- Skillstore revision: r1
- Version status: missing
- Tree hash: 7d3af7098bc1557701eefe9c8f9c2d5d34b942ee87ee6661fa680d353a390e78
- Author: DNYoussef
- GitHub username: DNYoussef
- License: MIT
- Repository: https://github.com/DNYoussef/ai-chrome-extension/tree/main/.claude/skills/when-reviewing-pull-request-orchestrate-comprehensive-code-review
- Ref: c579efd02184f1128d6741d16e6c8d951d7d4208
- Supported tools: Claude, Codex, Claude Code
- Audit status: complete
- Agent install advisory: confirmation\_required
- Manual install advisory: allowed
- Artifact signature: available
- Audit attestation: unavailable
- Human verification: not\_verified
- Risk factors: external\_commands, filesystem, env\_access
- Quality score: 38
- Quality tier: warning
- Public page: https://skillstore.pages.dev/skills/dnyoussef-when-reviewing-pull-request-orchestrate-comprehensive-code-review
- Manifest: https://skillstore.pages.dev/api/skills/dnyoussef-when-reviewing-pull-request-orchestrate-comprehensive-code-review/manifest

## Capabilities

- Defines a four-phase pull request review process from automated checks to final decision.
- Coordinates specialist reviewer roles for code quality, security, performance, architecture, tests, and documentation.
- Provides sample commands for claude-flow, test runners, coverage tools, build checks, and GitHub PR actions.
- Specifies memory key patterns for storing review metadata, phase findings, and final summaries.
- Includes decision rules for approve, request changes, and reject outcomes.
- Includes a GraphViz process diagram for the review workflow.

## Use Cases

- Standardize Team Reviews: Create a repeatable review process for pull requests that need consistent quality gates and clear merge decisions.
- Coordinate Security Review: Add focused security checks to a broader pull request review without losing context from quality and deployment findings.
- Improve Developer Platform Workflows: Document a multi-agent review process that combines automation, specialist feedback, memory storage, and GitHub status updates.

## Prompt Templates

### Review a Small PR

```
Use this skill to review PR 245 in owner/repo. Run read-only checks first. Summarize blockers before any GitHub action.
```

### Run Specialist Reviews

```
Use this skill for PR 312. Coordinate code quality, security, performance, architecture, testing, and documentation reviews. Return prioritized findings.
```

### Assess Release Risk

```
Use this skill to review a release PR. Include deployment impact, rollback readiness, feature flag needs, and final merge recommendation.
```

### Build a Full Review Report

```
Use this skill to conduct all four phases for PR 418. Do not change GitHub state until I approve the proposed final decision.
```

## Limitations

- It does not execute a review by itself; it requires compatible agents and local tooling.
- Command examples need adaptation for each repository, language stack, and CI environment.
- GitHub actions require repository permissions and should be confirmed before changing remote state.
- The four-hour timeline and quality metrics are workflow targets, not guaranteed results.

## Best Practices

- Run read-only checks before any command that changes GitHub state.
- Validate repository, pull request number, branch, and permissions before using command examples.
- Store findings by phase so later reviewers can inspect earlier evidence.

## Anti Patterns

- Do not auto-merge or approve a pull request without explicit maintainer confirmation.
- Do not treat sample thresholds as universal policy for every repository.
- Do not run every specialist review for small changes when a narrower review is enough.

## Security Audit

- Audited at: 2026-07-05T13:55:26.92\+00:00
- Summary: The static findings are false positives caused by Markdown formatting and illustrative Bash examples rather than hidden executable code. No prompt injection or secret exfiltration intent was found. The main security concern is semantic: the workflow includes GitHub commands that can approve, label, comment on, and merge pull requests, including an admin merge example.

## Stats

- Views: 367
- Downloads: 9
- Favorites: 0
- Popularity score: 0