Skip to main content
Glama

Review PR Against SDLC Standard

review_pr_against_standard
Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyzes pull requests against configurable SDLC standards (basic, strict, security-focused) and enforces code ownership checks via CODEOWNERS.

Instructions

Review a pull request against Agentic SDLC standards.

Standards:

  • basic: Core checks (tests, description, draft status, commit count)

  • strict: basic + large diff detection, missing docs

  • security-focused: strict + mature secret-scanner CI evidence + supplemental patch heuristics, .env files, lockfile changes, dist files

Ownership check (independent of standard, runs when checkOwnership is true and a CODEOWNERS file exists): Matches changed files against .github/CODEOWNERS (or CODEOWNERS / docs/CODEOWNERS), and flags any matched owner who is neither the PR author, a requested reviewer, nor an actual reviewer.

Args:

  • owner, repo: Repository coordinates.

  • pullNumber (number): The PR to review.

  • standard: "basic" | "strict" | "security-focused". Default: "basic".

  • checkOwnership (boolean, default: true): Enable the CODEOWNERS ownership check.

Returns: Sorted findings by severity, test coverage signal, ownership routing gaps, release risk, and conclusion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoGitHub repo. Falls back to GITHUB_REPO.
ownerNoGitHub owner. Falls back to GITHUB_OWNER.
standardNoReview standard: 'basic', 'strict', or 'security-focused'.basic
workTypeNoOptional explicit work type. When omitted, it is inferred from PR metadata and paths.
pullNumberYesThe pull request number to review.
checkOwnershipNoCheck changed files against .github/CODEOWNERS and flag owners who were neither requested nor have reviewed. Requires read access to repo contents and PR reviewers/reviews.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
errorsYes
findingsYes
hasTestsYes
standardYes
workTypeYes
conclusionYes
pullNumberYes
releaseRiskYes
policyDigestYes
policySourcesYes
policyDegradedYes
codeownersFoundYes
totalChangedLinesYes
workTypeReasoningYes
appliedPolicyRulesYes
testCoverageSignalYes
workTypeConfidenceYes
ownershipRoutingGapsYes
secretScannerEvidenceYes
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: what each standard checks, ownership matching logic (against CODEOWNERS), and return payload structure. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured: a concise overview sentence, bullet points for standards, a paragraph for ownership, then a clear Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value—no repetition or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, 2 enums, ownership logic, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: standards, ownership, parameter defaults, return summary. The output schema is mentioned, so further details are not required. The definition is fully self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: explains the three 'standard' values in detail, clarifies owner/repo fallback to environment variables, and describes ownership check mechanics. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reviews a pull request against Agentic SDLC standards, listing three distinct standard levels and an ownership check. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_pr_summary or quality_gate_status by focusing on a multi-standard review with ownership validation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each standard (basic, strict, security-focused) and explains the ownership check. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative sibling tools, which would further aid selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SakuraCianna/agentic-sdlc-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server