---
name: pr-review
description: Gut-check whether a pull request is meaningful, worth adding, the right approach, correct, and minimal, and give one recommend-* verdict.
argument-hint: "[PR URL or #N ...]"
---

# PR Review

With PRs named, check each one. With none, check every open non-draft PR in the
current repository that has no `recommend-*` label, one subagent per PR.

Check the title, description, and tests against the linked issue and the code
at the head commit; they are claims.

Answer five questions in order, each with one line of evidence:

1. **Meaningful**: is the problem real and still present on the base branch?
2. **Worth adding**: does the value justify the scope and ongoing maintenance?
3. **Right approach**: would you solve it this way, at the root cause? Fail it
   only by naming an alternative and what it gains: a different design, or a
   refactor or architecture change that lands first and shrinks or removes
   this change.
4. **Correct**: does it solve the problem without breaking a caller or edge
   case, and do the tests it adds for changed behavior fail on the base branch?
5. **Minimal**: is every changed line needed, with nothing that existing code already does?

Take the first failure's verdict:

| Fails | Verdict |
| --- | --- |
| Meaningful, or Worth adding for a technical reason | `recommend-close` |
| Worth adding as a product or scope call | `recommend-triage` |
| Right approach, Correct, or Minimal | `recommend-revise` |
| Nothing | `recommend-merge` |

Report to the caller the verdict, the five answers, and for `revise` the
specific changes needed. The caller decides what reaches the PR.