Review a Pull Request for Scope Creep
Added 2026-11-01
Surface the incidental changes so reviewers are not paying for unrelated work.
Here is a PR description and the list of changed files. Do: 1) separate changes required by the goal from incidental ones; 2) point out which incidental changes affect behaviour, not just style or naming; 3) recommend what to do with each — split out, keep with a note, or revert; 4) identify the place reviewers are most likely to skip and that carries the most risk; 5) write one comment I can paste into the PR. Do not judge code style.
Site original
Chinese original
How to use
评审 PR 时先看「和这个目标无关的文件」。
Try tweaking it
- Have it restate requirements and constraints before writing code.
- Ask for the smallest change plus a rollback path, not a full-file rewrite.
What you should get
- A minimal, runnable change with copy-ready code
- Impact list: which files and call sites must follow
Common mistakes
- Asking it to touch ten files at once, then losing track of what broke what.
- Pasting only the error, with no code or version, and getting an unfixable answer.
How to check the output
- The change runs, can be rolled back, and touches nothing unrelated.
- Edge cases (empty, oversized, concurrent) are covered or explained.
Where it works
- Good for: having it restate requirements and constraints, then propose the smallest runnable change.
- Watch out: include versions and a minimal reproduction with the error, or the fix may look plausible but not fit.