Review a GitHub Pull Request

The grind

PRs wait too long for a first look

Here's what doing this by hand looks like today, and why it doesn't scale.

• A good review takes 20 minutes of focused attention. In a busy week, PRs wait 24 hours for a first look, and the author has already context switched by then.
• Small PRs sit in the same queue as big ones.
• Style nits crowd out the real correctness comments.
• Reviewers miss the test coverage gap on the critical path.

MewCP collapses all of this into one prompt. Here's what that looks like.

The flow

5 steps · 1 server

Your agent runs it end-to-end

01

Fetch the PR, including the diff, the files changed, and the existing comments.

02

Identify correctness issues, like null checks, race conditions, and edge cases.

03

Flag missing tests on critical path changes.

04

Post inline comments for each concern.

05

Post a summary comment with a verdict, the blockers, and the nits.

The payoff

First pass reviews in minutes, not days

Authors get specific inline feedback before they have lost context. The human review focuses on the judgment calls rather than on counting missing semicolons.

Paste this into Claude, Codex, or any MCP-connected agent. It'll connect your apps and run the task from start to finish.

Run it yourself

Copy the prompt

Goal: Review a GitHub Pull Request

MCP servers needed (connected through MewCP): GitHub

Steps:
1. Fetch the PR, including the diff, the files changed, and the existing comments.
2. Identify correctness issues, like null checks, race conditions, and edge cases.
3. Flag missing tests on critical path changes.
4. Post inline comments for each concern.
5. Post a summary comment with a verdict, the blockers, and the nits.

Check with me before sending any message or changing data in a connected app.

More recipes

CLSE

Assemble Audit Evidence in Notion

Pull access reviews, export the WAF config, and assemble the evidence pack in Notion for the auditor walkthrough.