Sample PR report
This sample shows the kind of PR-time signal CodeDig is built to surface: blast radius, test gaps, security-relevant findings, and concrete next actions for reviewers.
Summary
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Files Changed | 12 |
| Blast Radius | 47 downstream consumers |
| Test Coverage on Changed Paths | 23% |
| Public API Changes | 3 breaking |
| Security Findings | 1 (SQL injection risk) |
⚠️ Key Findings
✓ Recommendations
PaymentProcessor.processRefund()UserRepository.findByEmail()Risk is elevated because the PR touches payment-processing code, changes public API behavior, and has weak test coverage on modified paths.
The report traces callers and dependent flows so reviewers can see which systems may be affected outside the visible diff.
Coverage is evaluated against changed code paths so reviewers can ask for the tests most likely to reduce merge risk.
Example output from blast-radius analysis. This is illustrative, not a customer case study.
Reviewer plan
CodeDig is not trying to replace judgment. It gives reviewers a risk map so they can decide where to slow down, ask for tests, or bring in the right owner before merge.
Ask for tests around refund error handling and rollback behavior.
Confirm the public API response change is intended and documented.
Review the SQL query change before approving the PR.
Notify owners of downstream billing and checkout flows if the response shape changes.
Reviewers see the summary where the merge decision happens.
Findings are scoped to changed code and paired with remediation guidance.
Affected consumers and owners help reviewers route follow-up before merge.