- name
- gh-pr-review
- description
- Automated Cherry Studio review for local branches, PRs, commits, files, architecture docs, and repository skills. Use for code or documentation reviews that need project-specific naming, main/renderer/shared placement and dependency rules, IpcApi and DataApi boundaries, lifecycle/service ownership, renderer hooks, React/UI conventions, and tests. Review depth adapts to diff size and runtime subagent capability (single-agent or multi-agent reviewer-verifier). Report-only by default; code fixes and GitHub submission each require explicit invocation-time authorization (`fix` / `submit`). Normal-review prompts and safe interruption behavior follow the interaction contract below. To diagnose gaps in the skill after a review session, run `/gh-pr-review diag`.
/gh-pr-review — Code Review
Automated code review for local branches, PRs, commits, and files. Detects
the review target from arguments, then picks the review engine from diff size
and runtime capability. Small diffs use single-agent review
(references/local-review.md). Large diffs use the multi-agent
reviewer–verifier flow (references/teams-review.md) only when independent
subagents are available; otherwise they fall back to single-agent review with
that limitation disclosed. PR targets add worktree setup and GitHub submission
(references/pr-review.md) around the same engine-selection contract.
Cherry Studio-specific review rules live in
references/cherry-review-guidance.md. Target review flows must load that file
for code, mixed, architecture-doc, and project-skill reviews so reviewers can
apply DataApi, service-boundary, renderer hook, React, UI, and type-contract
checks without relying on memory. That reference also defines which internal
docs, internal skills, external skills, and official websites to consult for
each changed area; load only the relevant subset.
All user-facing text matches the user's language.
Interaction and interruption contract
Apart from the declared categories below, normal review is prompt-free: never ask for mode selection, fix confirmation, finding selection, or submission preview. A leaf flow may request input only when it explicitly declares one of these categories:
- Product decision — in an interactive session, the Product Demand gate may ask the current user for a decision the review cannot derive. In an automated session, record the impact and open decision without deciding for the user.
- Safety or environment blocker — continuing would require destructive action, new authority, or missing external configuration. Declared examples are a dirty/mismatched review worktree, a missing canonical remote, cleanup of unexplained changes, removal of a failed fix patch, and a pending review draft holding comments this run did not confirm. In an interactive session, preserve state and ask only for the decision needed to proceed.
- Explicit maintenance mode —
diagand separately requested checklist maintenance are interactive selection flows outside normal review. They may ask for the declared edit selection or persistent checkout/branch target.
An automated session never waits for user input. At a product decision it continues record-only as specified below. At a safety/environment blocker it preserves state, stops the affected flow safely, and reports the exact blocker and required decision. In an explicit maintenance mode it reports candidates or missing destination information, applies no selection-dependent edits, and stops safely. No leaf flow may introduce another prompt category.