Cursor Skill: pr-review

# Cursor Skill: pr-review

## Intent

Review pull requests and diffs for behavioral regressions, merge risk, and missing test coverage.

## Validation Checklist

- [ ] The output matches the skill's intended task and platform.
- [ ] Required inputs, assumptions, and uncertainty are explicit.
- [ ] Safety, scope, and source limits are respected.
- [ ] The response follows the requested format or the skill's default output format.
- [ ] The result is practical enough to use without another cleanup pass.

Use this skill when reviewing a pull request, patch, or changed file set for regressions, practical risk, and missing tests. The goal is not to summarize the diff. The goal is to find what could break, what is under-tested, and what should block merge.

## Use When

- You are reviewing a pull request or local diff
- You want findings, not praise
- The change touches behavior, data flow, CI, auth, scripts, or deployment paths
- You need to map changed code to missing or weak validation

## Do Not Use When

- The task is to implement the feature instead of reviewing it
- The request is mainly about formatting or naming
- There is no diff, changed file list, or patch to inspect
- The user wants release notes or a summary instead of review findings

## Review Priorities

1. Behavioral regressions
2. Logic risk
3. Missing validation or error handling
4. Test gaps
5. Deployment, CI, or automation break risk
6. Docs drift when setup or usage changed

## Workflow

1. Read the pull request summary, changed files, and diff first.
2. Identify the risky areas:
   - core logic changes
   - auth or permission paths
   - API shape changes
   - state, storage, or schema changes
   - CI, workflow, or deployment changes
   - refactors that could hide behavior drift
3. Review the diff with a regression mindset.
4. Check whether the changed behavior has matching tests.
5. Prefer a short list of real findings over a long list of low value comments.
6. If no material findings exist, say that plainly and note residual risks or testing gaps.

## Output Format

Start with findings. Order them by severity.