How to use a Righthand with Bitbucket

Build a review handoff around repository identity

Use Righthand with Bitbucket to prepare a pull-request review handoff for a particular workspace and repository. The result should connect each unresolved question to the current revision and an accessible source. A workspace-wide list of titles is not enough for a reviewer to decide which request needs attention.

Bitbucket's pull-request reference describes pull requests within repository context. Preserve the workspace, repository, request identity, and source and destination branches. Branch names alone can be reused across repositories and should not be treated as unique work items.

Specify what the reviewer needs

Give the repository link, destination branch, included request states, and required review policy. For an illustrative client-delivery repository, the handoff might identify requests awaiting a designated reviewer and those missing source-linked validation notes.

Check Bitbucket's available reads through integrations. If activity, diff, or build evidence is absent from the exposed tools, provide approved links or authorize a browser inspection. Native access to one object does not establish access to every related operation or repository.

A complete delegation brief

At 11 AM America/Los_Angeles on Monday, review open pull requests in the named Bitbucket repository targeting the agreed delivery branch. Prepare a private reviewer queue with workspace and repository, PR ID and URL, source and destination branches, current source commit, explicit reviewers, and accessible validation evidence. Flag missing scope descriptions and uncertain review state. Do not approve, merge, or comment. Send to me for repository-owner review and reconcile the included requests against the current repository view.

This example is illustrative. Reviewer assignment indicates who is asked to review; it is not evidence that the review occurred or that the change meets the team's policy.

Define a useful handoff entry

An example could read: “PR 12; source revision changed since the supplied validation note; reviewer assigned; updated evidence requested.” The note should link to the request and the exact validation source, keeping the distinction between current and historical revisions visible.

When a description links a ticket, include its identifier but avoid asserting the ticket is resolved without inspecting its own state. A merged request and a closed ticket can still leave delivery work outstanding. The report's responsibility is to surface the evidence boundary.

Handle revisions and missing access

Reconcile the source commit on every repeat run. If the commit changes, refresh relevant build and review evidence instead of carrying forward an old readiness conclusion. Match requests by repository and ID rather than title so renamed work stays in the same queue entry.

A missing activity page can indicate authorization loss or partial retrieval. Report it as unavailable and keep the request pending review. If a merge is later authorized and supported, reread the resulting state and commit before describing the repository action as complete.

Use Righthand connection permissions for narrow access and reviewed outward actions. Check pricing before making the handoff recurring.