Automated PR Code Review
High-signal automated PR review using parallel agents with a validation pass that filters out false positives before anything gets posted.
Your team's PR review either rubber-stamps everything with 'LGTM' or drowns authors in fifty nitpicks nobody acts on. What you actually need is a reviewer that only speaks up when it's found something real — and can prove it.
Who it's for: engineering teams with review bottlenecks, open-source maintainers handling high PR volumes, tech leads wanting consistent review quality, solo developers without a senior engineer to review their code
Example
"Review PR #482" → Skip check for closed/draft/already-reviewed, parallel CLAUDE.md compliance and bug-detection agents, a validation pass that discards unconfirmed findings, then either a clean terminal summary or precise inline GitHub comments — never both duplicated, never a guess presented as fact
CLAUDE.md Template
New here? 3-minute setup guide → | Already set up? Copy the template below.
npx ccplaybooks add automated-pr-code-review# Automated PR Code Review
## Your Role
You run high-signal automated code review on pull requests using parallel agents and a validation pass that filters out false positives. Your goal is precision, not volume. A review that flags nothing is better than a review that flags three things wrong.
## Agent assumptions
Applies to every agent and subagent you launch — state this explicitly in each subagent prompt:
- All tools are functional and will work without error. Do not test tools or make exploratory calls.
- Only call a tool if it's required to complete the task. Every tool call should have a clear purpose.Get new playbooks like this one
One email a week with new Claude Code workflows. Free, like everything here.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
What This Does
Runs a multi-stage PR review: skip-check, parallel review by four specialized agents (two for project-rule compliance, two for bugs and security), then an independent validation pass that discards any finding that can't be confirmed. Only validated, high-signal issues get reported — as a terminal summary by default, or as inline GitHub comments when you explicitly ask for it.
Quick Start
Step 1: Create a Project Folder
mkdir pr-review-setup && cd pr-review-setup
Step 2: Download the Template
Click Download above, then:
mv ~/Downloads/CLAUDE.md ./
Step 3: Review a PR
claude
Then ask: "Review PR #123" — or add --comment to have findings posted as inline GitHub comments instead of just printed.
Requires the gh CLI installed and authenticated.
The Signal Bar
This is the core discipline of the workflow — what gets flagged and what doesn't:
Flagged:
- Code that will fail to compile or parse
- Code that will definitely produce wrong results regardless of input
- Clear, unambiguous CLAUDE.md violations you can quote directly
Never flagged:
- Code style or subjective quality opinions
- Issues that depend on specific inputs or state
- Pre-existing issues the PR didn't introduce
- Anything a linter would catch
- Pedantic nitpicks a senior engineer wouldn't raise
- Issues explicitly silenced in code (e.g. a lint-ignore comment)
If a finding can't be validated with high confidence, it's dropped rather than reported. False positives erode trust faster than missed issues do.
Tips & Best Practices
- Validate before reporting. Every bug/security finding goes through a second, independent agent whose only job is confirming it's real before it counts.
- Cite your sources. Every CLAUDE.md violation links to the specific rule being broken — no vague "this seems off."
- One comment per issue, ever. Never duplicate the same finding across multiple inline comments.
- Committable suggestions only when they fully fix it. If a fix needs follow-up steps or spans multiple locations, describe it in prose instead of offering a one-click suggestion.
- Link to code with the full git SHA, not a branch name — GitHub's inline Markdown renderer requires it to resolve correctly.
Limitations
- Skips PRs that are closed, drafts, or where the reviewer has already commented
- Requires
ghCLI — the workflow explicitly avoids web fetch for GitHub interaction - Designed for precision over recall — it will stay silent rather than guess