agentleFS
HeyEddi-comHeyEddi-com/heyeddi-skills/skills/heyeddi-pr-respond/SKILL.md

heyeddi-pr-respond

Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Respond to all PR review feedback — human reviewers, HeyEddi CI, inline threads. Auto-fix, commit+push, in-thread replies, CI check first — never ask before fixing or posting. One skill for every review source.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Always: run @heyeddi-ci-fails first (fetch, diagnose, fix actionable CI failures)

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    Post: every reply in-thread automatically

    line 23
  3. Distinctive:

    Only merge requires authorize merge in the current turn

    line 24
  4. Very specific:

    Delete legacy pr-* / pr-*-ci-* files under .heyeddi/docs/ if present.

    line 38
  5. Very specific:

    Run build_comment_inventory after fetch — parses root summaries + inline IDs.

    line 51
  6. Very specific:

    Every postable item gets fix/decline analysis, code change when needed, and ## Comment <id> reply draft.

    line 52
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not treat the root summary as done after one top-level reply.

    line 54
  8. Distinctive:

    When you have finished the user's request for this skill, suggest what to run next:

    line 119

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

HeyEddi PR Respond

PR author response to every review source — human teammates, bots, and HeyEddi CI (inline + root summaries).

There is one respond skill. Do not split human vs CI into different pipelines.

Default behavior (no confirmation)

On any PR work, do not ask whether to fix findings, check CI, or post threaded replies — always do all three.

  1. Always run @heyeddi-ci-fails first (fetch, diagnose, fix actionable CI failures)
  2. Fix valid review items automatically
  3. Commit + push automatically
  4. Post every reply in-thread automatically
  5. Only merge requires authorize merge in the current turn

No project scratch files

Never write .heyeddi/docs/pr-* (tracking, replies, posted, comments). GitHub threads are the SSOT.

DataWhere it lives
Comment cacheSystem temp (fetch_pr_comments stdout path)
Inventorybuild_comment_inventory stdout (optional temp cache)
TrackingIn chat only
Reply drafts--replies-text to post_thread_replies / verify_response
Post logpost_thread_replies stdout JSON only

Delete legacy pr-* / pr-*-ci-* files under .heyeddi/docs/ if present.

Root review summaries (HeyEddi CI and others)

Review submission bodies often list findings like:

**Commented on the diff**
1. 🔴 Bug title — `path/to/file.py:185`

Mandatory:

  1. Run build_comment_inventory after fetch — parses root summaries + inline IDs.
  2. Every postable item gets fix/decline analysis, code change when needed, and ## Comment <id> reply draft.
  3. Orphan items still get fix/decline in code and appear in ## Summary.
  4. Do not treat the root summary as done after one top-level reply.

Critical: commit + push before "Fixed" replies

Reviewers and HeyEddi debate only see remote HEAD.

  1. Apply fixes for every inventory item marked fix/partial
  2. Commit — do not ask
  3. Push to the PR branch
  4. Post in-thread replies

Hard gate: assert_fixes_pushed --check (also inside post_thread_replies unless --dry-run / --allow-unpushed).

Critical: in-thread replies only

  • Do gh api …/pulls/<N>/comments/<ID>/replies
  • Do not gh pr comment per finding
  • Do not "Acknowledged review attachment…" spam

Mandatory pipeline

@heyeddi-ci-fails first                 → fetch + diagnose + fix CI failures + push
fetch_pr_comments --pr <N>
build_comment_inventory --pr <N> --write-cache
→ tracking table in chat (every item: id, type, fix|decline, status)
for each item: analyze vs PR goals → fix | decline | partial | out-of-scope
apply code/docs fixes when fix
@heyeddi-setup verify_setup --check      → always-on prefs hard gate (before commit/push)
@engineering-excellence check_engineering_plan / audit_engineering --check  → always-on (errors fail)
discover_and_verify [--run]              → evidenced commands only
assert_no_merge --check                  → unless user said authorize merge
→ if any fix: commit + push (automatic — do not ask; honor agent.commit/push)
assert_fixes_pushed --check
→ compose ## Comment <id> for every postable_reply_id + ## Summary last
post_thread_replies --pr <N> --replies-text '...'
verify_response --pr <N> --replies-text '...' --use-inventory --live --check
→ optional one Summary after verify

Never merge without authorize merge in the current turn.

HeyEddi CI false positives

Reply in-thread with decline rationale; suggest debate or support@heyeddi.com. No fake FP API.

Tools

ToolPurpose
fetch_pr_commentsFetch inline, review, discussion → temp cache
build_comment_inventoryParse root summaries + inline; list every item
filter_commentsOptional --scope heyeddi (default all)
discover_and_verifyEvidenced test/build commands
assert_no_mergeMerge hard gate
assert_fixes_pushedCommit+push gate before Fixed replies
post_thread_repliesPost every draft in-thread
verify_responseHard-fail if any postable ID missing

Requires

  • gh CLI authenticated

When the task is complete: suggest next skills

When you have finished the user's request for this skill, suggest what to run next:

python .agents/skills/heyeddi/scripts/suggest_next_skill.py \
  --current-skill heyeddi-pr-respond --project-root .

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.