Enhance PR review instructions for local and GitHub

[kernelsam]

Updated instructions for automated code review based on environment.

Pull request questions

Which issue does this address

Issue number: #nnn

Why was change needed

???

What does change improve

???

[github-actions]

🤖 Claude Code Review

PR Code Review - build-resources

Code Quality

✅ Code follows style guide

The changes are to markdown documentation only. The modifications follow standard markdown conventions and maintain consistency with the existing format.

✅ No commented-out code

No commented-out code present in the diff.

✅ Meaningful variable names

Not applicable - this is documentation/template content, not code.

✅ DRY principle followed

The content is clear and concise without unnecessary repetition.

✅ No defects identified

No bugs, logic errors, or security vulnerabilities identified. The changes are clarifications to documentation.

✅ Project memory configuration

No .claude/CLAUDE.md file found in the repository that would apply specific review criteria.

Testing

ℹ️ Unit tests - N/A

Not applicable - documentation changes only.

ℹ️ Integration tests - N/A

Not applicable - documentation changes only.

ℹ️ Edge cases - N/A

Not applicable - documentation changes only.

ℹ️ Test coverage - N/A

Not applicable - documentation changes only.

Documentation

⚠️ Markdown formatting - Minor issues detected

claude/pr-prompt.md:4

• Line 4: "devlopers" should be "developers" (typo)

The markdown structure follows CommonMark specification. However, I should verify the formatting is consistent:

• Proper use of headers
• Consistent list formatting
• No extra whitespaces

Specific feedback:

1. Typo on line 4: Change "devlopers" to "developers"
2. The markdown formatting is otherwise clean and follows CommonMark specification
3. List indentation is consistent

ℹ️ Readme updated - N/A

Not applicable - this is a template file update, not a feature change requiring README updates.

ℹ️ API docs - N/A

Not applicable - no API changes.

✅ Inline comments

The changes improve clarity by:

• Distinguishing between local and GitHub execution contexts
• Clarifying that line numbers should reference the complete file, not just the diff
• Adding instruction to consider existing GitHub PR comments

ℹ️ CHANGELOG.md

Not applicable - this appears to be an internal template/tooling update that may not require CHANGELOG entry, but consider documenting if this is a significant workflow change.

Security

✅ No hardcoded credentials

No credentials present.

✅ Input validation

Not applicable - documentation only.

✅ Proper error handling

Not applicable - documentation only.

✅ No sensitive data

No sensitive data present.

✅ No license files checked in

No .lic files or AQAAAD strings detected in the changes.

---

Summary

Overall Assessment: ✅ APPROVED with minor fix required

The changes improve the PR review template by:

1. ✅ Distinguishing between local and GitHub execution contexts
2. ✅ Clarifying line number expectations (complete file vs diff)
3. ✅ Adding instruction to consider existing GitHub PR comments

Required Fix:

• claude/pr-prompt.md:4 - Fix typo: "devlopers" → "developers"

Recommendation:
After fixing the typo, this PR is ready to merge. The changes enhance the clarity and functionality of the automated code review process.

Automated code review analyzing defects and coding standards

[github-actions]

🤖 Claude Code Review

Code Review Analysis

Code Quality

✅ Code follows style guide

The changes are to a markdown documentation file. The modifications are clear and follow standard markdown formatting.

✅ No commented-out code

No commented-out code present in the diff.

✅ Meaningful variable names

N/A - This is a documentation/prompt file with no code variables.

✅ DRY principle followed

The changes don't introduce duplication. The additions provide clarifying context for different execution environments.

✅ No defects identified

The changes are documentation improvements that:

• Clarify when the review runs locally vs on GitHub (lines 3-8)
• Specify that line numbers should reference complete files, not diff line numbers (line 13)

These are logical improvements to the PR review prompt.

⚠️ Project memory consideration

No .claude/CLAUDE.md file was found in this repository to consider.

---

Testing

N/A Unit tests

This is a documentation/prompt file - no executable code to test.

N/A Integration tests

N/A for documentation changes.

N/A Edge cases covered

N/A for documentation changes.

N/A Test coverage

N/A for documentation changes.

---

Documentation

✅ Readme updated if needed

The file being modified (claude/pr-prompt.md) is itself documentation. No README updates appear necessary for these internal prompt improvements.

N/A API docs

No API changes in this diff.

✅ Inline comments for complex logic

The changes add clarity to the prompt instructions themselves, which serves as documentation for the code review process.

⚠️ CHANGELOG.md updated

No CHANGELOG.md appears to be present or updated. Consider adding one if this is a versioned component.

✅ Markdown formatting

The markdown follows CommonMark specification:

• Proper heading hierarchy
• Consistent list formatting with - bullets
• No trailing whitespace issues visible
• Proper code block formatting

---

Security

✅ No hardcoded credentials

No credentials present.

N/A Input validation

N/A for documentation.

N/A Error handling

N/A for documentation.

✅ No sensitive data in logs

No logging code or sensitive data.

✅ No license files

No .lic files or AQAAAD strings detected.

---

Summary

Overall Assessment: ✅ APPROVED

This is a clean documentation improvement that enhances the PR review prompt with:

1. Clear distinction between local and GitHub execution contexts
2. Important clarification that line numbers should reference complete files, not diff hunks

Recommendations:

• Consider adding a CHANGELOG.md if this component is versioned and released separately
• The changes improve usability and reduce potential confusion in automated reviews

No blocking issues found.

Automated code review analyzing defects and coding standards