pr-review

PR Technical Accuracy Review

Review a vscode-docs pull request and verify every factual claim about VS Code behavior against the source code in microsoft/vscode and microsoft/vscode-copilot-chat. Produce an actionable list of findings the author can address before merging.

This skill checks technical accuracy only. It does not enforce writing style, frontmatter, or release-notes structure — use the release-note-writer or frontmatter-description skills for those.

When to Use

• Reviewing a vscode-docs PR that documents a new or updated VS Code or Copilot feature.
• Auditing existing docs for drift after a feature has changed.
• Asked to "fact-check", "verify", or "validate" a docs change against the product.
• Before merging a PR that touches docs/, api/, remote/, or release-notes content tied to a specific behavior.

Do not use this skill for pure copy-edits, redirects, image swaps, or other changes that make no factual claims.

Repos to Check

Use the gh CLI for all GitHub interactions (see user memory gh-cli-powershell.md for PowerShell-specific patterns).

Procedure

1. Identify the PR and its diff

• If a PR number was given, run gh pr view <number> --json number,title,headRefName,baseRefName,files,body to get metadata and the file list.
• If no argument was given, run gh pr view --json ... to use the PR for the current branch. If there is no associated PR, fall back to git diff origin/main...HEAD.
• Get the actual changed lines with gh pr diff <number> (or git diff for a branch).
• Skip files whose changes are purely cosmetic (typo fixes, image renames, redirect entries, frontmatter-only edits).

2. Extract verifiable claims

Walk the diff and build a list of every claim that can be checked against source code. Include line numbers from the new file content. Categories to look for:

Treat anchor-style references (e.g., setting(chat.agent.enabled), command:workbench.action.X) as claims to verify.

3. Verify each claim

For every claim, locate the source of truth and compare. Prefer one targeted lookup per claim — do not download full files when a search will do.

Search the source repos (parallelize independent lookups):

• gh search code --repo microsoft/vscode '"<exact-string>"' for setting IDs, command IDs, contribution keys.
• gh search code --repo microsoft/vscode-copilot-chat '"<exact-string>"' for chat tool names, participant IDs, agent-mode flags.
• gh api "search/code?q=<query>+repo:microsoft/vscode" when the gh search CLI quotes the query in a way that breaks qualifiers (see user memory gh-cli-powershell.md).
• gh api repos/microsoft/vscode/contents/<path>?ref=main to read a specific file.

Where things live (common starting points):

• Settings — search for '<setting.id>' near registerConfiguration calls; default values are in the default: field of the schema.
• Commands — search for CommandsRegistry.registerCommand or registerAction2 with the matching id.
• Keybindings — search for KeybindingsRegistry.registerKeybindingRule or look in src/vs/workbench/browser/parts/editor/... and feature folders.
• Extension API — src/vscode-dts/vscode.d.ts (stable) and src/vscode-dts/vscode.proposed.*.d.ts (proposed).
• Chat tools — search microsoft/vscode-copilot-chat for displayName, toolReferenceName, or the tool ID string.
• Contribution points — extensions/<ext>/package.json and the schema in src/vs/workbench/api/common/extHost*.ts.

Version availability — when a doc claims "since 1.X":

• gh api repos/microsoft/vscode/contents/<file>?ref=release/1.X to see if the symbol existed in that branch, or
• gh search commits --repo microsoft/vscode '<symbol>' to find when it was introduced.

If a claim cannot be verified after a reasonable search, mark it Unverified rather than failing it — the author may have access to context the source does not expose.

4. Categorize each finding

5. Produce the findings list

Output a Markdown report with this structure:

## PR Accuracy Review: #<number> — <title>

**Files reviewed:** <count>
**Claims checked:** <count>
**Result:** <Pass | Pass with warnings | Needs changes>

### Errors

* **`<file>`:L<line>** (`<category>`) — <one-line description>
  * Doc says: `<quoted text>`
  * Source: `<repo>/<path>#L<line>` — <what the source actually says>
  * Fix: <specific suggested correction>

### Warnings

* ...

### Suggestions

* ...

### Unverified

* **`<file>`:L<line>** — <claim>. Searched <queries tried>. Please confirm.

Rules for the report:

• Use workspace-relative paths and 1-based line numbers for vscode-docs files, formatted as Markdown links per the fileLinkification rules.
• For source-code citations, include the repo, file path, and (when known) line or commit. A gh-friendly URL is fine: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/blob/main/<path>#L<line>.
• Quote the doc text exactly so the author can search for it.
• Keep each finding to one issue — split combined problems into separate items.
• If everything checks out, say so explicitly and skip the empty sections.

6. Summary

End with:

• Counts by severity.
• An overall verdict: Pass, Pass with warnings, or Needs changes (any Errors → Needs changes).
• A reminder that this review covers technical accuracy only, and to run style/frontmatter skills separately if needed.

Notes

• Do not push commits or post review comments on the PR unless the user explicitly asks. This skill produces a report for the user to act on.
• Do not edit enterprise/policies.md — it is generated; flag policy issues against enterprise/policies-template.md and the source policy definitions instead.
• When the doc references screenshots or videos, do not attempt to verify their contents — only verify any captions, labels, or alt text that make factual claims.
• Prefer main as the source-of-truth ref unless the PR explicitly documents behavior on a release branch or Insiders-only feature, in which case check release/1.X or recent commits accordingly.