dotfiles

Pragma Review

Fetch and analyse Pragma's AI-generated review for a GitLab MR.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — optional MR number (integer). If omitted, detected from context.

Instructions

1. Determine the MR number:
2. If $ARGUMENTS contains an integer, use it directly as the MR number.
3. Otherwise, run glab mr view and parse the IID: field from the output.
4. If both fail, ask the user: "Which MR number would you like to review?"

1. Ensure the working tree reflects the MR source branch:
2. Run glab mr view <MR_NUMBER> and parse the Source Branch: field → <mr_branch>.
3. Run git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD → <current_branch>.
4. If <current_branch> equals <mr_branch>, continue to step 3.
5. Otherwise:
6. Record <current_branch> so it can be restored later.
7. Inform the user: "Switching to <mr_branch> to analyse MR code accurately."
8. Run glab mr checkout <MR_NUMBER> to switch to the MR branch.
9. Set a flag BRANCH_SWITCHED=true.

1. Determine the repository name:
2. Run glab mr view <MR_NUMBER> (reuse output from step 2) and parse the Project: or

Web URL field to extract the repository name (e.g. pdm-db).

• Use just the short repository name (last path segment), not the full group path.

1. Find the most recent Pragma review for this MR:
2. Call mcp__pragma__list_reviews with repository set to the repo name from step 3.
3. Filter returned entries where the filename contains _mr<MR_NUMBER>_.
4. If multiple matches exist, select the one with the latest timestamp (the timestamp

appears in the filename as YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS).

• If no matching review is found, output:

> "No Pragma review found for MR !<number> in repository <repo>." restore the original branch (step 8) and stop.

1. Fetch the full review content:
2. Call mcp__pragma__get_review with the filename selected in step 4.

1. Output Section B — High-value findings:

Present a prioritised list of findings from the Pragma review that meet ALL of:

• Blocking, critical, or high-severity (explicitly stated in Pragma's output, or

clearly impactful based on context)

• Non-obvious (not something a linter, type-checker, or compiler would catch)
• Actionable (has a specific file/line reference or a concrete recommendation)

Format: ``` ## High-Value Findings (Pragma MR !<number>)

1. [CRITICAL/HIGH] <finding summary> — <file>:<line>

Rationale: <one sentence on why this is worth acting on>

1. ...

```

If no findings meet the criteria, state: "No high-value findings identified."

1. Output Section C — Meta-critique:

Assess the quality of the Pragma review itself across four dimensions:

``` ## Pragma Review Quality Assessment

Coverage: <Did it address the key areas of the diff? What did it focus on?> Accuracy: <Are the findings grounded in the actual code? Any hallucinations?> False positives: <List any findings that appear incorrect or unsubstantiated> Gaps: <Important aspects of the diff that Pragma missed entirely> ```

1. Restore original branch (if switched):
2. If BRANCH_SWITCHED=true, run git checkout <current_branch>.
3. Inform the user: "Restored branch to <current_branch>."

Notes

• Be concise. Section B should rarely exceed 5 items.
• Section C should be factual, not speculative — only flag gaps you can identify from

the diff or codebase context.

• Do not repeat the full Pragma review verbatim.