post-review
Skill0 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub
Fluxo Review etapa 3 — publica o review aprovado no PR do GitHub com comentarios inline e veredicto (approve/comment/request_changes) condicional aos achados.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- gittower/git-flow-nexttheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- gittower/git-flow-next★ 458same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository28 other files it gives its agents.
- ado-closeSkill
- ado-commentSkill
- ado-getSkill
- ado-refineSkill
- adrSkill
- approve-reviewSkill
- appSkill
- autoSkill
- challenge-specSkill
- completeSkill
- dart-clean-archSkill
- discoverySkill
- fixSkill
- flutter-clean-archSkill
- implementSkill
- jira-refineSkill
- kickoffSkill
- linear-refineSkill
- orcamentoSkill
- planSkill
- pr-openSkill
- pr-statusSkill
- refineSkill
- reviewSkill
- specifySkill
- statusSkill
- tasksSkill
- verifySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 49
Use o helper pr-review.sh:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
1. Detectar projeto e PR
PROJECT_PATH=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)
source ~/.claude/bin/get-project.sh
PROJECT_NAME=$(get-project-name)
REVIEWS_DIR="$HOME/.claude/workflow/$PROJECT_NAME/reviews"Se o usuario passou um numero, use como PR_NUM. Se nao, liste reviews aprovados:
for f in "$REVIEWS_DIR"/PR-*.md; do
grep -l "^status: approved" "$f" 2>/dev/null
donePergunte qual publicar.
2. Validar review aprovado
Leia $REVIEWS_DIR/PR-${PR_NUM}.md. Confirme status: approved no frontmatter. Se nao, avise: "Este review nao foi aprovado. Execute /approve-review <PR_NUM> primeiro."
Leia $REVIEWS_DIR/PR-${PR_NUM}.comments.json. Confirme que existe e tem itens validos.
3. Decidir veredicto (condicional)
Conte severidades no comments.json:
critical=$(jq '[.[] | select(.severity=="critical")] | length' "$REVIEWS_DIR/PR-${PR_NUM}.comments.json")
major=$(jq '[.[] | select(.severity=="major")] | length' "$REVIEWS_DIR/PR-${PR_NUM}.comments.json")
minor=$(jq '[.[] | select(.severity=="minor")] | length' "$REVIEWS_DIR/PR-${PR_NUM}.comments.json")
nit=$(jq '[.[] | select(.severity=="nit")] | length' "$REVIEWS_DIR/PR-${PR_NUM}.comments.json")
total=$((critical + major + minor + nit))Regra de decisao:
critical >= 1OUmajor >= 3→REQUEST_CHANGESmajor >= 1OUminor >= 1→COMMENTtotal == 0→APPROVE- Apenas
nit→COMMENT
Mostre a contagem e o veredicto escolhido. Pergunte: "Veredicto: <verdict>. Confirma publicacao? (sim/nao)" — espere confirmacao.
4. Publicar review
Use o helper pr-review.sh:
bash ~/.claude/bin/pr-review.sh "$PR_NUM" "$REVIEWS_DIR/PR-${PR_NUM}.comments.json" "<VERDICT>" "$REVIEWS_DIR/PR-${PR_NUM}.md"O helper:
- Le o
comments.json - Le o body do review do markdown (secao "## Resumo" + "## Veredicto sugerido" como summary)
- Faz
gh pr view --json baseRefOid,headRefOid,number,headRepositorypara obter o commit SHA do head - Monta payload JSON da API GitHub Reviews (event + body + comments[] com path/line/body/side)
- POST
repos/:owner/:repo/pulls/:pr/reviews
Se algum comentario falhar (ex: linha fora do diff), o helper reporta quais nao foram publicados — voce decide se publica os restantes ou aborta.
5. Atualizar status local
Apos publicacao com sucesso, atualize o frontmatter de PR-${PR_NUM}.md:
status: publishedpublished_at: <ISO timestamp>verdict: <VERDICT>review_id: <id retornado pela API>
6. Finalizar
Apresente:
- URL do review:
gh pr view <PR_NUM> --json url --jq .url - Veredicto publicado
- Total de comentarios inline publicados (vs falhas)
Mensagem: "Review #<PR_NUM> publicado como <VERDICT> com N comentarios inline."
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

