The Review System
This page is for developers deciding how much confidence to place in a PRFlow review. The system combines mechanical evidence and independent review passes, but it does not prove that a change is perfect.Four Review Phases
Setup and Classification
The review engine identifies the pull-request or branch diff, its base, related issue acceptance criteria and the risk profile of the changed files.Verification Checklist
PRFlow builds a change-specific verification checklist. It removes overlapping checks. It can evaluate simple presence or absence claims automatically. It sends deeper claims to a reviewer for evidence-based evaluation. A failed or inconclusive checklist item prevents a clean approval.Specialized Reviewers
PRFlow requests reviewers with different focus areas, including code correctness, tests, comments, silent failures and type design. Findings identify a file, line and defect type when possible. PRFlow uses those signatures to count independent corroboration. Agreement from several reviewers raises confidence in a finding. A single-source finding remains visible for closer human scrutiny.Verdict
PRFlow combines checklist results, findings, completed reviewers and configured severity thresholds into an approval-side or rejection verdict. It reports incomplete checklist items and reviewers that did not complete.Review and Fix
review-and-fix uses the same review process in a correction loop. It evaluates findings and applies justified corrections. It verifies each correction and reviews the result again. The configured default cap is five fix iterations.
Before an approval-side result stands, a shadow pass reviews the diff again without the primary reviewers’ conclusions. It can return a missed finding to another iteration. It also reports which planned reviewers completed and any known coverage gaps. No reported gap proves only that PRFlow recorded no known gap, not that every defect was found.
The inline review-and-fix loop reports its result in the session. Run the standalone review workflow when you want PRFlow to attempt a formal pull-request review verdict.
What Independent Review Means
Independent prompts and reviewer contexts reduce shared blind spots. Agreement from several reviewers and a fresh shadow pass can expose an unsupported approval. They narrow risk. They do not eliminate it. Reviewers can share model limitations, tests can encode the same mistaken assumption as the implementation and production conditions can differ from the repository environment. Use the review output as structured evidence for human review. Do not treat anAPPROVE verdict as proof of correctness or as authorization to merge.