review-pr

Reviewing a GitHub pull request for code quality and security involves validating changed files against general, UI, and API checklists to surface high-risk issues before merging. It gathers PR context like title, body, and branch names to inform file-level and context-aware checks.

Checklist-driven code review evaluates pull requests by validating changes against predefined general, UI, and API checklists alongside project-specific conventions. It outputs structured findings with severity levels and suggested mitigations ready for PR comments.

Yes, you can enforce project-specific conventions like AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md during a PR review. The evaluation applies these repository-specific files alongside standard checklists to ensure code consistency and context-aware validation across changed files.

Performing a comprehensive code review on a large repository requires automated PR context gathering to fetch changed files and branch names, followed by checklist-driven evaluation to surface high-risk security and performance issues before merging.

Yes, automated PR review outputs actionable feedback for pull request comments. It reports structured findings with severity levels and suggested mitigations, ensuring the feedback is ready for direct PR comments or automated remediation workflows.

The best way to check pull requests for security and performance issues is applying checklist-driven evaluation that validates changed files against project conventions. This surfaces high-risk defects early by performing file-level and context-aware checks before merging.