FastSync/.opencode/skills/pr-review/SKILL.md

name, description

name	description
pr-review	Reviews a pull request for bugs, memory safety, thread safety, and style issues. Use when the user says "review PR", "review this PR", "review pull request", or wants a code review of changes.

PR Review Skill

Read-only code review of a pull request branch. Produces a report — does NOT edit files.

Workflow

Step 1: Identify the PR branch

If the user specifies a PR number, check it out:

tea pr checkout <number>

If already on a PR branch, verify with:

git branch --show-current
git log dev..HEAD --oneline

Step 2: Get changed files

git diff dev --name-only -- '*.c' '*.h'

This gives the list of C source and header files changed in the PR.

Step 3: Read all changed files

Use the Read tool to read every changed .c and .h file. Read full files — don't skip any.

Step 4: Review each file

For each changed file, review for:

Memory Safety

• Every malloc/calloc has a matching free on all code paths (including error paths)
• No use-after-free (pointers used after *_destroy() is called)
• No double-free
• Null checks after allocation before use
• Correct buffer sizes (strlen + 1 for null terminators)
• Data objects created/destroyed properly

Thread Safety

• Shared state accessed under mutex
• No race conditions on queue operations
• Condition variable signals under lock
• No deadlock potential (consistent lock ordering)
• done flags checked properly in consumer loops

Protocol Safety

• send_n_data / receive_n_data return values checked
• Status codes validated before use
• Config serialization handles partial reads

Logic Errors

• Off-by-one in loops/buffers
• Incorrect size calculations
• Wrong enum values or comparisons
• Missing break statements in switch

Error Handling

• Resources freed on error paths (no leaks)
• Functions return appropriate error values
• Error messages are useful

Security

• No strcpy/strcat/sprintf — use snprintf with bounds
• malloc size calculations don't overflow
• Path traversal prevention (.. in filenames)
• No fixed-size stack buffers for unbounded input
• TLS error codes checked after SSL_read/SSL_write
• No hardcoded certificates, keys, or credentials
• Received file permissions validated (no SUID/SGID injection)
• Denial of service: bounded memory, malformed messages handled

Performance Impact

• Unnecessary memory copies in hot paths
• Excessive malloc/free in tight loops
• Missing sendfile() opportunity for large files
• Compression level appropriate for use case
• Queue sizing appropriate for workload

Step 5: Categorize findings

For each issue:

1. File:line — exact location
2. Severity — critical / warning / style
3. Category — memory / thread / protocol / security / performance / logic / error
4. Description — what's wrong and how to fix it

Step 6: Output report

Print a formatted summary:

=== PR REVIEW SUMMARY ===
Branch: <branch-name>
Files reviewed: <count>
Issues found: <count>

CRITICAL: <count>
WARNING: <count>
STYLE: <count>

=== ISSUES ===
[1] src/shared/compression.c:42 — CRITICAL (memory)
    Potential leak: data returned from data_compress() not freed on error path
    Fix: Add data_destroy(compressed) before return false

...

=== VERDICT ===
[PASS] No critical issues found
  — or —
[FAIL] <N> critical issues must be fixed before merge

Step 7: Optional PR comment

If the user wants to post the review as a PR comment:

tea pr comment <number> --comment "<review report>"

Rules

• Do NOT edit any source files
• Do NOT run builds or tests
• Do NOT commit or push
• Report ALL issues — don't filter or minimize
• Be specific about line numbers and fix suggestions