---

name: code-review description: Conduct thorough code reviews for pull requests and pre-commit changes group: development keywords: [code-review, pull-request, quality, pr, review code, code quality] version: 1.0.0 author: docent

Code Review Runbook

Overview

This runbook provides procedures for reviewing code in two scenarios:

1. Pull Request Review - Reviewing contributor PRs before merging (primary focus)
2. Pre-Commit Review - Self-reviewing changes before committing directly to main

The review process ensures code quality, maintainability, adherence to project standards, and alignment with architectural decisions (ADRs).

Expected duration:

• PR Review: 15-30 minutes per PR
• Pre-Commit Review: 5-10 minutes for local changes

Prerequisites

Required Tools

• gh CLI (GitHub CLI) - version 2.0 or higher
• git command line tool
• Project-specific build tools (npm, cargo, etc.)
• Text editor or IDE for code inspection
• Web browser for detailed PR viewing

Required Access

• For PR Review: Read access to repository (comment-only) OR Write access (approve/request changes)
• For Pre-Commit Review: Local development environment

Required Knowledge

• Familiarity with project ADRs or architectural documentation
• Understanding of project coding standards
• Knowledge of project's primary language(s) and frameworks

Pre-Flight Checklist

Before starting, ensure:

• You have time for thorough review (don't rush)
• You understand the feature/fix context
• CI/CD checks status is visible
• You're familiar with related ADRs

Scenario 1: Pull Request Review

Use this procedure when reviewing PRs from contributors or reviewing your own PRs before merge.

Step 1: Find PRs Ready for Review

Purpose: Identify pull requests that need review

Commands:

Copy# List all open PRs
gh pr list --state open

# List PRs assigned to you for review
gh pr list --search "review-requested:@me"

# List PRs by specific author
gh pr list --author <username>

# List PRs with specific label
gh pr list --label "ready-for-review"

Validation:

• Output shows list of open PRs with numbers and titles
• PR status is visible (draft, open, ready)

If step fails:

• Verify you're in the docent repo directory
• Check GitHub CLI auth: gh auth status

---

Step 2: Review PR Overview

Purpose: Understand what the PR does and why

Commands:

Copy# View PR in terminal
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER>

# View PR in browser for full experience
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --web

# Check PR metadata (labels, reviewers, CI status)
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json title,body,labels,reviews,statusCheckRollup

Review Checklist:

• Title is clear - Describes the change concisely
• Description is complete - What, why, and how
• Issue linked - References related issue (if applicable)
• Labels applied - Type (bug/enhancement), components
• Tests mentioned - How was this tested?
• Breaking changes noted - If any
• Screenshots/examples - For UI or output changes

Validation:

• PR purpose is clear
• Context for review is sufficient
• No red flags in description

If context is missing:

Copygh pr comment <PR_NUMBER> --body "Thanks for this PR! Could you provide additional context:

- What problem does this solve?
- How did you test this?
- Are there any breaking changes?

This will help with the review process."

---

Step 3: Check CI/CD Status

Purpose: Ensure automated checks pass before manual review

Commands:

Copy# Check CI status
gh pr checks <PR_NUMBER>

# Watch CI in real-time
gh pr checks <PR_NUMBER> --watch

# View specific check details
gh run view <RUN_ID>

Requirements:

• ✅ All CI checks must pass (tests, linting, build)
• ✅ No failing workflows
• ✅ Code coverage maintained or improved

If CI fails:

Copy# Request fixes before continuing review
gh pr comment <PR_NUMBER> --body "The CI checks are failing. Please fix these issues before review:

- [List specific failures]

Once fixed, I'll complete the review."

Do not proceed with detailed review until CI passes - this saves time and ensures baseline quality.

---

Step 4: Check Out PR Locally

Purpose: Test the changes in your local environment

Commands:

Copy# Check out the PR branch
gh pr checkout <PR_NUMBER>

# Verify you're on the PR branch
git branch --show-current

# Pull latest changes if needed
git pull

Validation:

• You're on the PR branch
• Working directory is clean (except for uncommitted changes from PR)

If step fails:

• Stash local changes: git stash
• Try checkout again
• Check for merge conflicts

---

Step 5: Run Tests and Build Locally

Purpose: Verify the code works in your environment

Commands:

Copy# Install dependencies (if package.json changed)
npm install

# Run TypeScript build
npm run build

# Run tests
npm test

# Run linting
npm run lint

# Run markdown linting
npm run lint:md

Validation:

• ✅ Build completes without errors
• ✅ All tests pass
• ✅ No linting errors
• ✅ No new warnings (or acceptable warnings documented)

If tests fail locally but pass in CI:

• Check Node version: node --version
• Check for environment differences
• Document findings in review comment

---

Step 6: Review Code Quality

Purpose: Examine the code for quality, style, and maintainability

Commands:

Copy# View all files changed
gh pr diff <PR_NUMBER>

# View diff for specific file
gh pr diff <PR_NUMBER> --name-only
git diff main -- path/to/file.ts

# See full file content
cat path/to/file.ts

Code Quality Checklist:

• Follows project conventions - Style matches existing code
• Clear naming - Functions/variables have descriptive names
• Appropriate complexity - Not overly complex or nested
• DRY principle - No unnecessary duplication
• Error handling - Errors are caught and handled appropriately
• Edge cases - Boundary conditions are considered
• Comments where needed - Complex logic is explained (focus on WHY)
• No debug code - No console.log, debugger statements
• Type safety - TypeScript types are used appropriately
• Dependency injection - External dependencies are injected (testable)

Red Flags:

• 🚩 Large functions (>50 lines) - Consider breaking up
• 🚩 Deeply nested logic (>3 levels) - Refactor for readability
• 🚩 Magic numbers/strings - Use named constants
• 🚩 Commented-out code - Remove or document why it's kept
• 🚩 TODO/FIXME comments - Should be issues, not comments
• 🚩 Copy-pasted code - Extract to shared function

---

Step 7: Verify Architectural Alignment

Purpose: Ensure changes align with project architecture and decisions

Commands:

Copy# Check relevant ADRs
ls -1 docs/adr/

# Search ADRs for related decisions
grep -r "<topic>" docs/adr/

# View specific ADR
cat docs/adr/adr-NNNN-<topic>.md

Architecture Checklist:

• Follows established patterns - Uses existing architectural patterns
• Respects ADR decisions - Doesn't contradict documented decisions
• Appropriate abstraction - Not over-engineered or under-engineered
• Separation of concerns - Clear responsibilities
• Testability - Code is structured for testing
• MCP vs CLI alignment - For docent: follows MCP-first approach (ADR-0004)
• No breaking changes - Or if breaking, properly documented and justified

If PR conflicts with ADR:

Copygh pr comment <PR_NUMBER> --body "This change conflicts with [ADR-NNNN](../adr/adr-NNNN.md) where we decided [decision].

Could you either:
1. Refactor to align with the ADR, OR
2. Make a case for why we should revisit that decision (would require new RFC/ADR)

Happy to discuss approaches!"

---

Step 8: Review Tests

Purpose: Ensure changes are properly tested

Commands:

Copy# List test files changed
gh pr diff <PR_NUMBER> --name-only | grep -E 'test|spec'

# View test coverage (if available)
npm test -- --coverage

# Run specific test file
npm test -- path/to/test.ts

Test Quality Checklist:

• Tests exist - New functionality has tests
• Tests are focused - Test one thing at a time
• Descriptive test names - Clear what's being tested
• Business-focused - Tests reflect requirements, not implementation
• Edge cases covered - Happy path and error cases
• No test implementation details - Tests don't know about internals
• Fixtures used - Existing test data reused when possible
• Assertions are clear - Expected vs actual is obvious

Test Coverage Requirements:

• Required: Business logic and core functionality
• Optional: Simple getters/setters, glue code
• Encouraged: Bug fixes include regression test

If tests are inadequate:

Copygh pr comment <PR_NUMBER> --body "The implementation looks good, but I'd like to see tests for:

- [Specific functionality that needs tests]
- [Edge cases that should be covered]

Tests help ensure this works correctly and prevents regressions."

---

Step 9: Check Documentation

Purpose: Ensure changes are documented appropriately

Commands:

Copy# Check if docs were updated
gh pr diff <PR_NUMBER> --name-only | grep -E '\.md$|docs/'

# Search for related documentation
grep -r "<feature name>" docs/

Documentation Checklist:

• Public APIs documented - JSDoc/TSDoc for exported functions
• User-facing changes documented - README or guides updated
• Breaking changes documented - CHANGELOG.md or migration guide
• Examples provided - For new features or tools
• ADR created - For architectural decisions (if applicable)
• RFC referenced - If implemented from an RFC

Documentation Requirements:

• New MCP tools: Must have spec in docs/specs/mcp-tools/
• Breaking changes: Must update CHANGELOG.md
• New features: Should update relevant guides
• Bug fixes: Optional docs, unless behavior changes

If docs are missing:

Copygh pr comment <PR_NUMBER> --body "This change needs documentation updates:

- [ ] Update README with new feature usage
- [ ] Add JSDoc comments to exported functions
- [ ] Update CHANGELOG.md with breaking changes

Let me know if you need help with any of these!"

---

Step 10: Provide Review Feedback

Purpose: Give constructive, actionable feedback

Feedback Guidelines:

• Be specific - Point to exact lines and explain why
• Be constructive - Suggest improvements, don't just criticize
• Be kind - Remember there's a person behind the code
• Prioritize - Mark required changes vs nice-to-haves
• Praise good work - Call out clever solutions and good patterns

Commands:

Copy# Add general comment
gh pr comment <PR_NUMBER> --body "Great work on this! I have a few suggestions..."

# For inline comments, use the web interface
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --web

# Request changes (blocks merging)
gh pr review <PR_NUMBER> --request-changes --body "Thanks for this PR! Before merging, please address:

## Required Changes
- [ ] Fix error handling in foo.ts:45
- [ ] Add tests for edge case X
- [ ] Update documentation for API change

## Nice-to-have
- Consider extracting duplicate logic to helper function
- Variable naming could be more descriptive

Happy to re-review once these are addressed!"

# Approve with minor comments
gh pr review <PR_NUMBER> --approve --body "Looks great! Just a couple of minor suggestions (non-blocking):

- Consider adding a comment explaining the algorithm in line 45
- Nice refactoring of the error handling!

Approved to merge once CI passes."

# Comment without approving/requesting changes
gh pr review <PR_NUMBER> --comment --body "I have some questions about the approach before I can give a full review:

- Why did you choose approach X over Y?
- How does this handle case Z?

Once clarified, I'll complete the review."

Review Categories:

1. Approve - Code is good to merge (use --approve)
2. Request Changes - Issues must be fixed before merge (use --request-changes)
3. Comment Only - Feedback/questions but not blocking (use --comment)

---

Step 11: Follow Up on Changes

Purpose: Ensure requested changes are addressed

Commands:

Copy# Check if PR was updated
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER>

# See new commits since your review
git log --oneline main..<PR_BRANCH> --since="2 days ago"

# View changes to specific file since review
git diff <OLD_COMMIT> <NEW_COMMIT> -- path/to/file.ts

# Re-run tests with changes
npm test

Follow-up Actions:

• Review updated code
• Verify all requested changes were addressed
• Check if any new issues were introduced
• Approve once satisfied

If changes look good:

Copygh pr review <PR_NUMBER> --approve --body "Thanks for addressing the feedback! The changes look good. ✅"

---

Step 12: Merge or Close PR

Purpose: Complete the review process

Merge Requirements:

• ✅ At least one approval (or your approval if you have write access)
• ✅ All CI checks passing
• ✅ No unresolved review comments
• ✅ No merge conflicts
• ✅ Branch is up to date with main

Commands:

Copy# Merge PR (squash commits for clean history)
gh pr merge <PR_NUMBER> --squash --delete-branch

# Merge with merge commit (preserves commit history)
gh pr merge <PR_NUMBER> --merge --delete-branch

# Merge with rebase (linear history)
gh pr merge <PR_NUMBER> --rebase --delete-branch

# Close without merging (if rejecting)
gh pr close <PR_NUMBER> --comment "Thanks for the contribution! Unfortunately, this doesn't align with [reason]. See [alternative approach/issue]."

Merge Strategy for Docent:

• Default: Squash merge - Clean commit history, one commit per PR
• Use merge commit: Only if preserving detailed history is important
• Use rebase: For small PRs with clean commits

Post-Merge:

Copy# Return to main branch
git checkout main

# Pull merged changes
git pull origin main

# Clean up local PR branch
git branch -d <PR_BRANCH>

---

Scenario 2: Pre-Commit Review (Local)

Use this procedure when reviewing your own changes before committing directly to main.

Quick Pre-Commit Checklist

Purpose: Self-review before committing to main (no PR)

When to use: For small fixes, documentation updates, or when you have direct commit access

Commands:

Copy# 1. Check what's changed
git status
git diff

# 2. Review your own changes
git diff --staged  # If already staged
git diff HEAD      # All uncommitted changes

# 3. Run automated checks
npm run build      # TypeScript compilation
npm test           # Run test suite
npm run lint       # Linting
npm run lint:md    # Markdown linting

# 4. Check for debug code
git diff | grep -E 'console\.log|debugger|TODO|FIXME'

# 5. Verify no secrets
git diff | grep -iE 'password|secret|token|api[_-]?key'

# 6. Check against ADRs (if architectural change)
grep -r "<related topic>" docs/adr/

# 7. Update docs if needed
# - Update README if user-facing
# - Update CHANGELOG.md if notable
# - Add ADR if architectural decision

# 8. Commit with clear message
git add .
git commit -m "feat: add concise doctor output

- Add verbose parameter to doctor tool (default: false)
- Create concise formatter that groups findings
- Show only failures/warnings by default
- Maintain backward compatibility

Closes #2"

Self-Review Questions:

• Would this pass PR review?
• Is it tested?
• Is it documented (if needed)?
• Does it follow conventions?
• Does it align with ADRs?
• Will others understand this in 6 months?

If unsure:

Consider creating a PR even for your own work - gives community visibility and opportunity for feedback.

---

Validation

After completing a review:

1. For PR Review:

   • Feedback is clear and actionable
   • Review status is set (approve/request changes/comment)
   • All required changes are documented
   • Next steps are clear to PR author

2. For Pre-Commit Review:

   • All automated checks pass
   • No debug code or secrets
   • Changes align with standards
   • Commit message is clear

Rollback

If you need to undo review actions:

Dismiss Review

Copy# Dismiss your own review (if you change your mind)
# Note: Can only be done via web UI or API
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --web
# Navigate to your review and select "Dismiss review"

Revert Merged PR

Copy# If PR was merged incorrectly
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json mergeCommit --jq '.mergeCommit.oid'

# Create revert PR
git revert <MERGE_COMMIT_SHA>
git push origin main

# Or revert via GitHub
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --web
# Click "Revert" button

Troubleshooting

Common Issues

Issue 1: Can't Reproduce Bug Fix Locally

Symptoms:

• PR claims to fix bug
• Can't reproduce bug locally
• Tests pass but unclear what was fixed

Resolution:

Copygh pr comment <PR_NUMBER> --body "I'm having trouble reproducing the bug this fixes. Could you provide:

- Steps to reproduce the original bug
- How to verify the fix works
- Test case that covers this scenario

This will help validate the fix and prevent regressions."

---

Issue 2: PR is Too Large to Review

Symptoms:

• 1000+ lines changed
• Multiple unrelated changes
• Difficult to understand scope

Resolution:

Copygh pr comment <PR_NUMBER> --body "This PR is quite large and touches many areas. To make review more effective, could you:

1. Split into smaller PRs (if possible), OR
2. Provide a detailed summary of each major change, OR
3. Schedule a synchronous review session to walk through changes

Large PRs are harder to review thoroughly and more likely to introduce issues."

---

Issue 3: Conflicting Feedback from Multiple Reviewers

Symptoms:

• Different reviewers suggest different approaches
• Author is confused about which direction to take

Resolution:

Copy# Coordinate with other reviewers
gh pr comment <PR_NUMBER> --body "@reviewer1 @reviewer2 - We have different suggestions on approach. Let's align on one direction:

**Option A (my suggestion):** [Describe]
**Option B (@reviewer1's suggestion):** [Describe]

@author - We'll resolve this and get back to you with aligned feedback."

---

When to Escalate

Escalate to project lead (@tnez) if:

• Major architectural disagreement between reviewers
• Potential security vulnerability discovered
• Breaking change without clear justification
• Contributor is unresponsive for >1 week
• Personal conflicts in review comments

Escalation Method:

Copygh pr comment <PR_NUMBER> --body "@tnez - Could you weigh in on [specific issue]? Need maintainer input to proceed."

Post-Procedure

After reviewing a batch of PRs:

• Document any patterns noticed (common issues, good practices)
• Update this runbook if new edge cases discovered
• Consider creating issues for recurring review feedback
• Thank contributors publicly (comment, mention in changelog)
• Take a break - code review is cognitively demanding!

Notes

Important Notes:

• Review with empathy - Contributors are volunteering their time
• Explain the "why" - Don't just say what's wrong, explain why it matters
• Be timely - Review within 24-48 hours when possible
• Link to standards - Point to ADRs, guides, examples
• Praise good work - Positive feedback is motivating
• Ask questions - "Why did you choose X?" is often better than "Change X to Y"

Gotchas:

• Don't rubber-stamp reviews - thoroughness matters
• Don't be a perfectionist - good enough is often good enough
• Don't review when tired - quality suffers
• Don't review your own major changes without a second pair of eyes
• Don't merge immediately after approval - give time for others to review

Related Procedures:

• Triage GitHub Issues - For issue review workflow
• CI/CD Health Check - For checking CI status
• Contributing Guide - Standards for contributors

Review Philosophy:

docent values:

• Code quality over speed - Take time for thorough review
• Maintainability over cleverness - Prefer clear code
• Testing as documentation - Tests should express intent
• Architecture alignment - Respect documented decisions (ADRs)

Revision History

---

This runbook ensures consistent, thorough code review that maintains quality while being respectful and constructive to contributors.