comprehensive-review-pr-enhance

Pull Request Enhancement

When to Use

• You need to turn a git diff into a reviewer-friendly pull request description.
• You want a PR summary with change categories, risks, testing notes, and a checklist.
• The diff is large enough that reviewers need explicit structure instead of a short ad hoc summary.

Workflow

1. Run git diff <base>...HEAD --stat to identify changed files and scope
2. Categorise changes: source, test, config, docs, build, styles
3. Generate the PR description using the template below
4. Add a review checklist based on which file categories changed
5. Flag breaking changes, security-sensitive files, or large diffs (>500 lines)

PR Description Template

## Summary
<!-- one-paragraph executive summary: what changed and why -->

## Changes
| Category | Files | Key change |
|----------|-------|------------|
| source   | `src/auth.ts` | added OAuth2 PKCE flow |
| test     | `tests/auth.test.ts` | covers token refresh edge case |
| config   | `.env.example` | new `OAUTH_CLIENT_ID` var |

## Why
<!-- link to issue/ticket + one sentence on motivation -->

## Testing
- [ ] unit tests pass (`npm test`)
- [ ] manual smoke test on staging
- [ ] no coverage regression

## Risks & Rollback
- **Breaking?** yes / no
- **Rollback**: revert this commit; no migration needed
- **Risk level**: low / medium / high — because ___

Review Checklist Rules

Add checklist sections only when the matching file category appears in the diff:

Splitting Large PRs

When diff exceeds 20 files or 1000 lines, suggest splitting by feature area:

git checkout -b feature/part-1
git cherry-pick <commits-for-part-1>

Resources

• resources/implementation-playbook.md — Python helpers for automated PR analysis, coverage reports, and risk scoring

Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.