gh-pr-review

<!-- Based on https://github.com/Tencent/tgfx/tree/main/.codebuddy/skills/cr -->
<!-- Adapted for agent runtimes and the Cherry Studio tech stack -->

# /gh-pr-review — Code Review

Automated code review for local branches, PRs, commits, and files. Detects
the review target from arguments, then picks the review engine from diff size
and runtime capability. Small diffs use single-agent review
(`references/local-review.md`). Large diffs use the multi-agent
reviewer–verifier flow (`references/teams-review.md`) only when independent
subagents are available; otherwise they fall back to single-agent review with
that limitation disclosed. PR targets add worktree setup and GitHub submission
(`references/pr-review.md`) around the same engine-selection contract.

Cherry Studio-specific review rules live in
`references/cherry-review-guidance.md`. Target review flows must load that file
for code, mixed, architecture-doc, and project-skill reviews so reviewers can
apply DataApi, service-boundary, renderer hook, React, UI, and type-contract
checks without relying on memory. That reference also defines which internal
docs, internal skills, external skills, and official websites to consult for
each changed area; load only the relevant subset.

All user-facing text matches the user's language.

## Interaction and interruption contract

Apart from the declared categories below, normal review is prompt-free: never
ask for mode selection, fix confirmation, finding selection, or submission
preview. A leaf flow may request input only when it explicitly declares one of
these categories:

- **Product decision** — in an interactive session, the Product Demand gate may
  ask the current user for a decision the review cannot derive. In an automated
  session, record the impact and open decision without deciding for the user.
- **Safety or environment blocker** — continuing would require destructive
  action, new authority, or missing external configuration. Declared examples
  are a dirty/mismatched review worktree, a missing canonical remote, cleanup
  of unexplained changes, removal of a failed fix patch, and a pending review
  draft holding comments this run did not confirm. In an interactive session,
  preserve state and ask only for the decision needed to proceed.
- **Explicit maintenance mode** — `diag` and separately requested checklist
  maintenance are interactive selection flows outside normal review. They may
  ask for the declared edit selection or persistent checkout/branch target.

An automated session never waits for user input. At a product decision it
continues record-only as specified below. At a safety/environment blocker it
preserves state, stops the affected flow safely, and reports the exact blocker
and required decision. In an explicit maintenance mode it reports candidates
or missing destination information, applies no selection-dependent edits, and
stops safely. No leaf flow may introduce another prompt category.

## Review Stages

Every review runs these stages in order. A later stage reviews only what
survived the earlier ones, so a stage never re-litigates an earlier verdict.

This table is the single source of truth for stage scope and references; a
leaf flow may not widen, narrow, or re-reference a stage.

| # | Stage | Applies to | Reference |
|---|-------|-----------|-----------|
| 1 | **Product Demand** (gate) | any change whose semantics affect the product | below |
| 2 | **Consumer** | any change that adds or expands shared surface | `references/consumer-review.md` |
| 3 | **Architecture-First** | code, mixed, Cherry architecture docs, project skills | `references/cherry-review-guidance.md` |
| 4 | **Implementation** | code, mixed | `references/code-checklist.md` (A/B) |
| 4 | **Implementation** | docs | `references/doc-checklist.md` (A/B) |
| 5 | **Style / conventions** | code, mixed | `references/code-checklist.md` (C) |
| 5 | **Style / conventions** | docs | `references/doc-checklist.md` (C) |

Stage applicability follows the changed content, not the commit label: a
documentation-only diff still runs stages 3–5 when it changes Cherry
architecture docs or project skills, and a code diff that also edits docs runs
both reference sets for stages 4–5.

### Stage 1: Product Demand gate

First inspect the semantics actually expressed or constrained by the change,
then decide whether it affects **product semantics, user-visible behavior, or
product direction**. Change labels are not sufficient evidence: internal
refactors and non-user-facing fixes often have no product impact, while docs,
tests, or tooling can record, lock, or alter product behavior. Skip this stage
entirely, in both interactive and automated runs, only after semantic review
confirms that the change is implementation-only; say nothing about the skipped
gate.

When there is product impact:

- **Interactive session (default)**: summarize the change's effect on product
  functionality and semantics, and ask the current user for the product
  decision. Do not infer automation from PR authorship, review ownership, or
  whether the user authored the decision. If the user judges the direction
  wrong, **stop the whole review immediately** — do not run Consumer,
  Architecture, Implementation, or Style stages, and do not report code
  findings. If the user approves the direction, continue with the remaining
  stages.
- **Automated session (explicit only)**: use this mode only when the invocation
  prompt or workflow context explicitly identifies a headless, CI, batch, or
  other automated run. Make **no** product decision on the user's behalf. Run
  the remaining stages, and in the final report summarize the product impact,
  the direction the change takes, and the points needing human confirmation.
  Never phrase this as product approval having been obtained.

## Authority model

A review request authorizes analysis and reporting only. The review target,
review depth, and reviewer–verifier confidence never grant execution
a