
Check PR
FreeAnalyze pull requests for review issues and status checks.
Free · Opens the source repo
What Check PR does
Check PR is a command-line tool designed to streamline the process of reviewing pull requests (PRs), merge requests (MRs), and changelists (CLs) across GitHub, GitLab, and Perforce. It helps developers ensure that their code submissions meet quality standards by checking for review comments, the status of automated checks, and any gaps in the PR description. By automating these checks, it reduces the manual effort required to prepare a change for submission, allowing developers to focus on writing code rather than managing reviews.
The tool works by first detecting the version control system in use, whether it be GitHub, GitLab, or Perforce. It can automatically identify the relevant PR or CL based on the current branch or user input. Once the target is identified, Check PR fetches details such as comments, review statuses, and any pending checks. This ensures that developers have a complete view of the current state of their submission before they proceed.
One of the key features of Check PR is its ability to wait for all status checks to complete before analyzing the PR or CL. This is crucial for ensuring that the code is not only reviewed but also passes any automated tests that are part of the CI/CD pipeline. The tool also checks for the presence of a fresh review from Greptile, ensuring that the feedback is relevant to the latest changes made to the code.
Check PR is ideal for developers who frequently work with PRs, MRs, or CLs and want to ensure that their submissions are thorough and meet all necessary criteria before merging. It is particularly useful in environments where code quality and review processes are critical, such as in larger teams or projects with strict quality gates.
When to use it
Use Check PR when preparing a pull request or merge request to ensure it meets all review and status criteria.
When not to use it
This tool is not suitable for projects that do not use GitHub, GitLab, or Perforce, or for very small projects where manual review is manageable.
What you can build with it
Preparing a Pull Request for Review
Use Check PR to ensure all review comments and checks are addressed before submitting your code.
Automating Code Review Processes
Integrate Check PR into your CI/CD pipeline to automatically analyze PRs for completeness and quality.
Ensuring Code Quality in Teams
Utilize Check PR in team environments to maintain high standards for code submissions and streamline the review process.
How to install Check PR
View source1. Install with the skills CLI
npx skills add paperclipai/paperclip/check-pr --agent claude-code2. Or install it manually
Download the skill folder and drop it into ~/.claude/skills/ for all projects, or .claude/skills/ to scope it to one repo. Restart Claude Code so it picks up the new skill.
Anthropic's agentic coding CLI, and the reference implementation of Agent Skills. Drop a skill folder into ~/.claude/skills and Claude Code loads it automatically whenever a task matches the skill's description. Claude Code docs
Inside SKILL.md
Written by paperclipaiCheck PR
Analyze a pull request (GitHub), merge request (GitLab), or shelved changelist (Perforce) for review comments, status checks, and description completeness, then help address any issues found.
Inputs
- PR/MR/CL number (optional): If not provided, detect the PR/MR for the current branch, or the default pending changelist for p4.
Instructions
0. Detect platform
First check if the user is working in a Perforce depot by looking for a .p4config file or P4CLIENT/P4PORT environment variables:
# Check for Perforce environment
if p4 info >/dev/null 2>&1; then
VCS="perforce"
else
# Fall back to git remote detection
REMOTE_URL=$(git remote get-url origin)
if echo "$REMOTE_URL" | grep -qi "gitlab"; then
VCS="gitlab"
else
VCS="github"
fi
fi
For self-hosted GitLab instances whose hostname doesn't contain "gitlab", the user can override by passing --vcs gitlab as an input. For Perforce, the user can override by passing --vcs perforce.
1. Identify the PR/MR/CL
If a number was provided, use it. Otherwise, detect it:
GitHub:
gh pr view --json number,headRefName,headRefOid -q '{number: .number, branch: .headRefName, head: .headRefOid}'
GitLab:
glab mr view --output json | jq '.iid'
Perforce:
# List pending changelists for the current user/client
p4 changes -s pending -u $P4USER -c $P4CLIENT
Key field differences between platforms:
- GitHub:
number,headRefName,headRefOid - GitLab:
iid,source_branch,sha - Perforce: changelist number (CL),
shelvedfiles for in-review CLs
2. Fetch PR/MR/CL details
GitHub:
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json title,body,state,reviews,comments,headRefName,headRefOid,statusCheckRollup
OWNER_REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner)
gh api "repos/$OWNER_REPO/pulls/<PR_NUMBER>/comments"
gh api --paginate "repos/$OWNER_REPO/issues/<PR_NUMBER>/comments?per_page=100"
GitHub PRs are also issues, so general PR comments live on the issue comments endpoint. Greptile may edit a single general PR comment on each review cycle instead of creating a new review or comment. Always inspect the latest Greptile-authored general comment by updated_at, including any "Prompt to fix all with AI" section, before concluding that the PR is clear.
GitLab:
glab mr view <MR_IID> --output json
# Fetch discussions (inline diff comments are type "DiffNote"; general comments have null type)
glab api "projects/:fullpath/merge_requests/<MR_IID>/discussions"
For GitLab, paginate discussions if needed (add ?per_page=100&page=N).
Perforce:
# Get changelist description, files, and status
p4 describe -s <CL_NUMBER>
# Get shelved files (for in-review CLs)
p4 describe -S <CL_NUMBER>
# Get the diff of the shelved changelist
p4 diff2 //...@=<CL_NUMBER> //...@=<CL_NUMBER>
# List review comments (if using p4 review workflow)
p4 review -c <CL_NUMBER>
Key Perforce CL fields:
Change: changelist numberStatus:pending,submitted,shelvedDescription: the CL description / commit messageFiles: list of files in the CL
3. Wait for pending checks
Before analyzing, ensure all status checks have completed. If any checks are PENDING or IN_PROGRESS (GitHub) / running or pending (GitLab), poll every 30 seconds until all checks reach a terminal state.
GitHub: poll statusCheckRollup from gh pr view.
GitLab:
glab api "projects/:fullpath/merge_requests/<MR_IID>/pipelines"
Pipeline statuses: running, pending, success, failed, canceled, skipped. Poll until no pipeline has running or pending status.
Perforce: Perforce doesn't have built-in CI checks natively. If the team uses a review tool (Swarm, etc.) or an external CI triggered by shelve events, check the relevant system. Otherwise, proceed to analysis immediately.
4. Require a fresh Greptile review for the current head
For GitHub PRs, do not treat an existing Greptile review, comment, or summary as current unless it is tied to the PR's exact current headRefOid. This is especially important after pushing a new commit to an existing PR: a Greptile review on an older commit is stale, even if the PR still has a Greptile comment or prior review.
Fetch the current head SHA immediately before the Greptile gate:
HEAD_SHA=$(gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid)
Then inspect check-runs for that commit and require a completed Greptile run:
OWNER_REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner)
GREPTILE_CHECKS=$(gh api "repos/$OWNER_REPO/commits/$HEAD_SHA/check-runs?per_page=100" \
--jq '[.check_runs[] | select(.name | test("greptile"; "i"))]')
# A run only counts as a valid fresh pass when it has completed AND concluded cleanly.
# GitHub check-run conclusions: success, neutral, skipped, failure, timed_out,
# cancelled, action_required, stale. Treat success/neutral as clean;
# everything else (especially failure and action_required) must block.
FRESH_GREPTILE_COMPLETED=$(echo "$GREPTILE_CHECKS" \
| jq '[.[] | select(.status == "completed")] | length')
FRESH_GREPTILE_CLEAN=$(echo "$GREPTILE_CHECKS" \
| jq '[.[] | select(.status == "completed" and (.conclusion | IN("success","neutral")))] | length')
FRESH_GREPTILE_BLOCKING=$(echo "$GREPTILE_CHECKS" \
| jq '[.[] | select(.status == "completed" and ((.conclusion | IN("success","neutral")) | not))] | length')
if [ "$FRESH_GREPTILE_COMPLETED" = "0" ]; then
echo "Blocked: no completed Greptile review/check is tied to current PR head $HEAD_SHA."
echo "Request a fresh Greptile review against this head before marking the PR check done."
echo "Suggested trigger: gh pr comment <PR_NUMBER> --body \"@greptile review\""
exit 1
fi
if [ "$FRESH_GREPTILE_BLOCKING" != "0" ] || [ "$FRESH_GREPTILE_CLEAN" = "0" ]; then
echo "Blocked: Greptile completed on head $HEAD_SHA but did not conclude clean"
echo "(conclusion was failure/action_required/timed_out/cancelled/stale, or no clean run exists)."
echo "Address the findings, push, and re-run Greptile until it concludes success/clean on the new head."
exit 1
fi
If a Greptile check exists for the current head but is still pending or in progress, wait for it with the same polling pattern used by greploop rather than proceeding from older review material. If no Greptile check appears for the current head after a reasonable wait, report the PR as blocked on a fresh Greptile review for HEAD_SHA and stop. Do not mark the check complete from PR comments, PR reviews, or Greptile summaries that cannot be associated with the current head SHA.
For GitLab installations with Greptile integration, apply the same freshness rule against the MR's current head SHA:
# 1. Get the MR's current head SHA
MR_SHA=$(glab mr view <MR_IID> --output json | jq -r '.sha // .diff_refs.head_sha')
# 2. Find the latest pipeline for that EXACT sha, then the Greptile job within it.
LATEST_PIPELINE_ID=$(glab api "projects/:fullpath/merge_requests/<MR_IID>/pipelines" \
| jq -r --arg sha "$MR_SHA" '[.[] | select(.sha == $sha)] | sort_by(.id) | last | .id // empty')
if [ -n "$LATEST_PIPELINE_ID" ]; then
GREPTILE_JOBS=$(glab api "projects/:fullpath/pipelines/$LATEST_PIPELINE_ID/jobs" \
| jq --arg sha "$MR_SHA" '[.[] | select(.name | test("greptile"; "i"))
| {name, status, pipeline_sha: $sha}]')
else
GREPTILE_JOBS='[]'
fi
GREPTILE_JOB_SUCCESS=$(echo "$GREPTILE_JOBS" \
| jq '[.[] | select(.status == "success")] | length')
GREPTILE_JOB_BLOCKING=$(echo "$GREPTILE_JOBS" \
| jq '[.[] | select(.status != "success")] | length')
# 3. If Greptile integrates via MR notes instead of a CI job, require the newest
# Greptile note to reference the current head sha and report a clean review.
GREPTILE_NOTES=$(glab api "projects/:fullpath/merge_requests/<MR_IID>/discussions?per_page=100" \
| jq --arg sha "$MR_SHA" '[.[].notes[]
| select(.author.username | test("greptile"; "i"))]
| sort_by(.updated_at // .created_at)')
GREPTILE_NOTE_CLEAN=$(echo "$GREPTILE_NOTES" \
| jq --arg sha "$MR_SHA" 'if length == 0 then 0
elif ((last.body // "") | contains($sha) and test("Confidence Score:[[:space:]]*5/5|Confidence:[[:space:]]*5/5|\\b5/5\\b"; "i") and (test("Prompt To Fix|blocking issue|failed|action required"; "i") | not)) then 1
else 0 end')
if [ "$GREPTILE_JOB_SUCCESS" = "0" ] && [ "$GREPTILE_NOTE_CLEAN" = "0" ]; then
echo "Blocked: no successful Greptile job or completed-clean current-head Greptile note is tied to MR head $MR_SHA."
exit 1
fi
if [ "$GREPTILE_JOB_BLOCKING" != "0" ]; then
echo "Blocked: at least one Greptile job for MR head $MR_SHA did not succeed."
exit 1
fi
Block completion if, for MR_SHA, there is (a) no Greptile job or note at all (missing), (b) the newest Greptile job/note is tied to a different sha (stale), or (c) the Greptile job status is not success. A completed Greptile result for a different SHA is stale and must block completion.
For Perforce installations with Greptile integration, apply the same rule using the CL's current shelved-revision identity and the Greptile webhook/review artifact tied to it; a Greptile result for an earlier shelf is stale and must block completion.
5. Analyze the PR/MR
Once all checks are complete, evaluate these areas:
A. Status Checks
- Are all CI checks passing?
- If any are failing, identify which ones and the failure reason.
B. PR/MR Description
- Is the description complete and follows team conventions?
- Are all required sections filled in?
- Are there TODOs or placeholders that need updating?
C. Review Comments
- Inline code review comments that need addressing
- Look for bot review comments (e.g. from
greptile-apps[bot]on GitHub, or the Greptile bot user on GitLab, linters, etc.) - Human reviewer comments
- Perforce: review comments from
p4 reviewor external review tools
D. General Comments
- Discussion comments on the PR/MR
- For GitHub, check the issue comments endpoint and use
updated_atto catch bot comments edited in place. Greptile's latest edited summary can contain actionable items even when there are no new inline comments. - Bot comments (deploy previews, etc.) - usually informational
- Perforce: CL description should include a clear summary, affected files rationale, and testing notes
6. Categorize issues
For each issue found, categorize as:
| Category | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Actionable | Code changes, test improvements, or fixes needed |
| Informational | Verification notes, questions, or FYIs that don't require changes |
| Already addressed | Issues that appear to be resolved by subsequent commits |
7. Report findings
Present a summary table:
| Area | Issue | Status | Action Needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Status Checks | CI build failing | Failing | Fix type error in src/api.ts |
| Review | "Add null check" - @reviewer | Actionable | Add guard clause |
| Description | TODO placeholder in test plan | Actionable | Fill in test plan |
| Review | "Looks good" - @teammate | Informational | None |
8. Fix issues (if requested)
If there are actionable items:
- Switch to the PR/MR's branch (git) or ensure files are open in the correct CL (Perforce) if not already.
- Ask the user if they want to fix the issues.
- If yes, make the fixes, then:
GitHub/GitLab: commit and push:
git add <files>
git commit -m "address review feedback"
git push
Perforce: open files for edit, make changes, and re-shelve:
p4 edit <file>
# make changes
p4 shelve -f -c <CL_NUMBER>
9. Resolve review threads
After addressing comments, resolve the corresponding review threads.
Perforce - Perforce does not have a native "resolve thread" concept. Instead, mark comments as addressed by updating the CL description or by responding in the review tool being used (Swarm, etc.). If using p4 review:
# Mark files as reviewed after addressing feedback
p4 review -c <CL_NUMBER>
GitHub - fetch unresolved thread IDs (paginate if needed - see the GraphQL reference):
gh api graphql -f query='
query($cursor: String) {
repository(owner: "OWNER", name: "REPO") {
pullRequest(number: PR_NUMBER) {
reviewThreads(first: 100, after: $cursor) {
pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor }
nodes {
id
isResolved
comments(first: 1) {
nodes { body path }
}
}
}
}
}
}'
If hasNextPage is true, repeat with -f cursor=ENDCURSOR to get remaining threads.
Then resolve threads that have been addressed or are informational:
gh api graphql -f query='
mutation {
resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_ID"}) {
thread { isResolved }
}
}'
Batch multiple resolutions into a single mutation using aliases (t1, t2, etc.).
GitLab - fetch unresolved discussions (see the GitLab API reference):
glab api "projects/:fullpath/merge_requests/<MR_IID>/discussions?per_page=100"
Filter for discussions where "resolved": false. Collect each discussion's id.
Resolve each discussion individually (GitLab has no batch resolution):
glab api --method PUT \
"projects/:fullpath/merge_requests/<MR_IID>/discussions/<DISCUSSION_ID>" \
--field resolved=true
Repeat for each unresolved discussion ID.
10. Multiple PRs/MRs/CLs
If checking a chain of PRs/MRs/CLs, process them sequentially.
Perforce - to check multiple changelists at once:
p4 changes -s pending -u $P4USER -c $P4CLIENT -l
Output format
Summarize:
- PR/MR/CL title or description and current state
- Platform detected (GitHub / GitLab / Perforce)
- Status checks summary (passing/failing/pending) - or N/A for Perforce
- Total issues found
- Actionable items with descriptions
- Items that can be ignored with reasons
- Recommended next steps
Frequently asked questions about Check PR
Similar skills
Quality Playbook Generator
Run comprehensive quality audits on any codebase.
PR Draft Summary
Automate PR summary generation for openai-agents-python.
Final Release Review
Streamline your release candidate audits with ease.
Unit Test Vue Pinia
Efficiently write and review unit tests for Vue 3 applications.
Slang Shader Expert
Optimize and integrate Slang shaders with ease.
Telemetry Standards
Ensure consistent event tracking in Supabase Studio.
