rb-review-pr-or-diff

To review a pull request for architectural risks, analyze the code diff to identify actionable defects, regressions, and maintainability risks. This process systematically evaluates failure boundaries, integration points, and adherence to project-specific testing conventions.

Risk-based code review evaluates changes for P0-P3 severity defects, including security, performance, and data integrity risks. It ensures test levels align with the likely failure boundaries of the change rather than just checking surface-level style.

Validating testing strategy in a code diff ensures test levels like unit, integration, and contract tests align with the likely failure boundaries of the change. This verifies that new logic is appropriately covered and semantic text handling avoids brittle regex patterns.

Yes, automated code review can find integration test gaps by systematically evaluating failure boundaries and integration points within the diff. It ensures new logic is covered by appropriate tests and verifies adherence to project-specific testing conventions.

Yes, this code review approach works with complex architectural changes by applying rigorous verification of semantic correctness and data integrity risks. It systematically evaluates integration points and failure boundaries to identify deep maintainability risks.

Automated pull request analysis limitations include relying on the user to provide the correct diff context and project-specific testing conventions. It focuses on semantic correctness and regression boundaries but requires systematic evaluation of integration points to avoid missing edge cases.