chore: import upstream snapshot with attribution

2026-07-13 12:10:27 +08:00
commit 49b9bb6724
992 changed files with 161690 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+Review the pull request: $ARGUMENTS
+
+Follow these steps carefully. Use the `gh` CLI for all GitHub interactions.
+
+## Step 1: Resolve the PR
+
+Parse `$ARGUMENTS` to determine the PR. It can be:
+
+- A full URL like `https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123`
+- A `owner/repo#123` reference
+- A bare number like `123` (use the current repo)
+- A description — search for it with `gh pr list --search "<description>" --limit 5` and pick the best match
+
+Once resolved, fetch the PR metadata:
+
+```bash
+gh pr view <PR> --json number,title,body,author,state,baseRefName,headRefName,url,labels,milestone,additions,deletions,changedFiles,createdAt,updatedAt,mergedAt,reviewDecision,reviews,assignees
+```
+
+## Step 2: Gather the diff
+
+Get the full diff of the PR:
+
+```bash
+gh pr diff <PR>
+```
+
+If the diff is very large (>3000 lines), focus on the most important files first and summarize the rest.
+
+## Step 3: Collect PR discussion context
+
+Fetch all comments and review threads:
+
+```bash
+gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments --paginate
+gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{number}/comments --paginate
+gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/reviews --paginate
+```
+
+Pay attention to:
+
+- Reviewer feedback and requested changes
+- Author responses and explanations
+- Any unresolved conversations
+- Approval or rejection status
+
+## Step 4: Find and read linked issues
+
+Look for issue references in:
+
+- The PR body (patterns like `#123`, `fixes #123`, `closes #123`, `resolves #123`)
+- The PR branch name (patterns like `issue-123`, `fix/123`)
+- Commit messages
+
+For each linked issue, fetch its content:
+
+```bash
+gh issue view <number> --json title,body,comments,labels,state
+```
+
+Read through issue comments to understand the original problem, user reports, and any discussed solutions.
+
+## Step 5: Analyze and validate
+
+With all context gathered, analyze the PR critically:
+
+1. **Intent alignment**: Does the code change actually solve the problem described in the PR and/or linked issues?
+2. **Completeness**: Are there aspects of the issue or requested feature that the PR doesn't address?
+3. **Scope**: Does the PR include changes unrelated to the stated goal? Are there unnecessary modifications?
+4. **Correctness**: Based on the diff, are there obvious bugs, edge cases, or logic errors?
+5. **Testing**: Does the PR include tests? Are they meaningful and do they cover the important cases?
+6. **Breaking changes**: Could this PR break existing functionality or APIs?
+7. **Unresolved feedback**: Are there reviewer comments that haven't been addressed?
+
+## Step 6: Produce the review summary
+
+Present the summary in this format:
+
+---
+
+### PR Review: `<title>` (<url>)
+
+**Author:** <author> | **Status:** <state> | **Review decision:** <decision>
+**Base:** `<base>` ← `<head>` | **Changed files:** <n> | **+<additions> / -<deletions>**
+
+#### Problem
+
+<1-3 sentences describing what problem this PR is trying to solve, based on the PR description and linked issues>
+
+#### Solution
+
+<1-3 sentences describing the approach taken in the code>
+
+#### Key changes
+
+<Bulleted list of the most important changes, grouped by theme. Include file paths.>
+
+#### Linked issues
+
+<List of linked issues with their title, state, and a one-line summary of the discussion>
+
+#### Discussion highlights
+
+<Summary of important comments from reviewers and the author. Flag any unresolved threads.>
+
+#### Concerns
+
+<List any issues found during validation: bugs, missing tests, scope creep, unaddressed feedback, etc. If none, say "No concerns found.">
+
+#### Verdict
+
+<One of: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / NEEDS DISCUSSION, with a brief justification>
+
+#### Suggested action
+
+<Clear recommendation for the reviewer: what to approve, what to push back on, what to ask about>
+
+---