review-comments
Skill9 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Address PR review feedback through explicit item selection, independent validation, focused local fixes, verification, and a local commit. Never publishes remote actions; use reply-comments for separately confirmed push, reply, and resolution gates.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- fuadnafiz98/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- nielsmadan/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 5, 2026
- matthiasn/lottitheir own version, first seen Sep 3, 2026
- hannasdev/skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 28, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- matthiasn/lotti★ 1.2ksame name
- hannasdev/skills★ 1same name
- nielsmadan/skills★ 1same name
- fuadnafiz98/skills★ 0same 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 repository81 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- architectSkill
- artifact-hygieneSkill
- backlog-groomSkill
- beads-check-dolt-migrationSkill
- beads-migrate-to-doltSkill
- beads-setupSkill
- beadsSkill
- breakdownSkill
- browser-screenshotSkill
- circleci-statusSkill
- clean-codeSkill
- complete-taskSkill
- confluenceSkill
- contract-checkSkill
- contract-testSkill
- create-prSkill
- delegate-workSkill
- dependabot-remediationSkill
- developSkill
- diagnose-bugSkill
- do-i-need-thisSkill
- eas-build-errorSkill
- handoffsSkill
- handoffs-tidySkill
- image-studioSkill
- implement-solutionSkill
- jira-commentSkill
- jira-ticketSkill
- landscapeSkill
- model-update-checkSkill
- name-sessionSkill
- nextSkill
- outstanding-workSkill
- pair-programmingSkill
- pedantic-reviewSkill
- peer-sessionSkill
- pickupSkill
- pi-spendSkill
- plan-daySkill
- plan-to-backlogSkill
- project-briefSkill
- prompt-patternsSkill
- pr-reviewersSkill
- pr-review-requestsSkill
- pr-statusSkill
- ready-to-mergeSkill
- ready-to-releaseSkill
- reassessSkill
- rebaseSkill
- refineSkill
- release-maintenanceSkill
- release-managerSkill
- release-statusSkill
- reply-commentsSkill
- review-prSkill
- sanity-checkSkill
- second-opinionSkill
- setup-multirepo-gitSkill
- skills-reviewSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 44
Before offering a local fix, prove that the current directory is a matching checkout:
- Distinctive: line 50
Never switch branches, create a checkout, fetch, reset, clean, or overwrite unrelated work.
- Distinctive: line 56
Use one bounded read-only call:
- Very specific: line 62
Read records, partial, and errors.
- Very specific: line 67
If partial is true, show available records and failed sources.
- Distinctive: line 95
Approval or automated status/noise: no action or response.
- Very specific: line 110
Use AskUserQuestion to select identities.
- Distinctive: line 157
Add a focused failing regression test when practical.
- Very specific: line 160
Run focused verification first, then the repository's required lint/type/test checks.
- Distinctive: line 164
Do not skip verification, bypass hooks, amend unrelated commits, or claim a fix without a successful local commit.
- Very specific: line 188
If the bead is already in_progress, leave it unchanged.
- Distinctive: line 211
Do not call a reply, conversation-comment, or resolution helper here.
- Very specific: line 226
Use local only for a new commit, not applicable when no change was made, prepared/not posted for drafts, and not attempted for remote …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Address Review Comments
Select and independently validate PR feedback before making focused local changes. This skill owns
only the attended local phase: selection, validation, edits, tests, and a local commit. It never
publishes a branch, GitHub reply, or thread resolution. /reply-comments owns those separately
confirmed remote actions.
Usage
/review-comments # PR for the current branch
/review-comments 123 # backward-compatible current-repository selector
/review-comments owner/repo#123 # repository-qualified selector from the watcher
/review-comments owner/repo#123 inline:C1 conversation:I2Trailing stable identities preselect candidates but never authorize an edit or reply.
Instructions
1. Resolve the PR and Checkout
Accept owner/repo#number or a numeric PR. With no selector, resolve the current branch through:
~/.agents/skills/review-comments/scripts/gh-pr-current-info.shFor a numeric selector, derive owner/repository from the current checkout. For a repository-qualified selector, use its owner/repository for every GitHub call. Fetch PR metadata, head SHA, branch, body, and changed files read-only.
Before offering a local fix, prove that the current directory is a matching checkout:
originresolves to the selected owner/repository;- the current branch/HEAD represents the selected PR head;
- the working tree's pre-existing changes are understood and will not be overwritten.
Never switch branches, create a checkout, fetch, reset, clean, or overwrite unrelated work. If no matching checkout exists, validation and reply preparation may continue from the PR diff, but local fix actions are unavailable. Tell the user which checkout is required.
2. Fetch the Normalized Inventory
Use one bounded read-only call:
~/.agents/skills/pr-status/scripts/gh-pr-feedback.py {owner} {repo} {pr_number}Read records, partial, and errors. Preserve each candidate's stable identity, updatedAt,
updateKey, stateKey, source, lifecycle, author kind, and targets throughout the run. Never use
body text or counts as identity. Pending draft review comments are not observable and must not be
invented.
If partial is true, show available records and failed sources. The user may select an available
record, but do not infer that an absent record is handled. If the helper is unavailable, the
existing gh-pr-view-reviews.sh and the shared inline-comment reader remain a compatibility fallback:
~/.agents/skills/pr-status/scripts/gh-pr-inline-comments.sh {owner} {repo} {pr_number}This Bash helper requires authenticated gh; missing tools or API failures return nonzero.
It preserves the legacy single-page response, so label completeness, stable identity and race
protection unavailable and do not combine both fetch paths. Keep pr-status installed alongside
this skill. The old local gh-pr-comments.sh path forwards to the shared reader for existing
permission rules; it is not a second implementation.
3. Apply Source and Lifecycle Policy
Group factual records by author kind, source, lifecycle, semantic type, and collector actionability. These are triage hints, not proof; semantic validity remains agent judgment against evidence.
- Human requests/questions: validate independently; prepare short, polite, evidence-based replies when selected.
- AI/bot findings: validate exactly like human claims; use a terse factual reply only when it adds useful closure. Bot confidence is not evidence.
- Top-level conversation or review summary: any response is prepared as a new top-level PR comment, never an inline reply.
- Inline review: retain the root reply target and thread ID. Only this source can later resolve a review thread.
- CI annotation: fix-only; it has no reply or resolution endpoint.
- Approval or automated status/noise: no action or response.
- False positive or intentional trade-off: a concise rationale may be prepared, but never claim a fix and do not mark it resolved as fixed.
- Needs closure: an inline record with
needsClosure: true(outdated, unresolved, no self reply) still looks ignored on GitHub. List it as a candidate with triage hintneeds closure; validate it against current code like any other item, and keep it eligible for an inline reply and thread resolution through/reply-comments. - Resolved, dismissed, self-authored, or outdated without
needsClosure: skip by default and show separately.
4. Select Items
Render a numbered candidate table with PR, stable feedback ID, author/source, lifecycle, bounded gist, and triage hint. No code change occurs before explicit item selection.
Use AskUserQuestion to select identities. When there are four or fewer, use one multi-select
question with one option per identity. For a larger inventory, ask in priority batches of at most
four and leave unselected items untouched; the user may type an exact list of IDs. Preselected IDs
from arguments still require this current-run confirmation. Selecting an item authorizes only
read-only validation, not a fix or publication.
5. Validate Selected Items
For each selected identity, read the full record, referenced path/line, current implementation, relevant PR diff, requirements, existing tests, and CI. Do not trust the reviewer wording. Choose one outcome and cite concrete evidence:
confirmed defectvalid improvementquestion needing an answersubjective/trade-off decisionfalse positive/already handledstale/outdatedout of scopeunable to validate
State confidence as high, medium, or low and name missing evidence. Security, architecture, scope-changing, ambiguous, or low-confidence feedback always returns to the user; never auto-fix it. Re-read the item against current code before any later edit. If the feedback became stale, outdated, resolved, or already handled, update the outcome and do not edit.
6. Choose a Local Action
Show the validation result first. Then use AskUserQuestion for each item, batching at most four
questions per call, with only eligible choices:
- Fix and verify (Recommended) — available only for a confirmed defect or accepted valid improvement in a matching checkout.
- Prepare reply — draft an evidence-based response but do not post it.
- Acknowledge only — record the item as reviewed in bounded session state; no repository or GitHub action.
- Defer / skip with rationale — leave it pending or retain a concise reason.
Questions and trade-offs default to Prepare reply or defer. Security, architecture, scope-changing, ambiguous, and low-confidence items offer discussion/defer choices only. A custom answer may narrow a requested fix but is not remote-action permission.
7. Implement, Verify, and Commit Locally
For each approved fix or coherent selected group:
- Define expected behavior and proportional test evidence before editing.
- Add a focused failing regression test when practical.
- Make the smallest change that addresses the validated claim.
- Cover the relevant happy path, sad path, and edge case; explain when one is not applicable.
- Run focused verification first, then the repository's required lint/type/test checks.
- Review the diff and confirm unrelated pre-existing work is excluded.
- Stage explicit paths only and commit locally with a concise conventional message.
Do not skip verification, bypass hooks, amend unrelated commits, or claim a fix without a successful local commit. If tests fail, stop and keep remote actions unavailable. If multiple items require unrelated changes, use separate commits. This skill does not publish the commit.
Reopen the bead after a committed fix
A PR workflow closes its bead when the PR is created. Reopen it only when this run produced a
successful local commit for at least one selected confirmed defect or accepted valid improvement.
Replies, acknowledgements, deferrals, false positives, and uncommitted edits never change bead state.
List closed candidates, then match the PR's Jira key against the bead title/description or use an obvious one-to-one correspondence. If none match, skip silently. If several match, ask which one; never guess.
bd list --status=closedProve ownership before reading or mutating the selected bead:
~/.agents/skills/next/scripts/next-select resolve <bead-id>On
ambiguous,unavailable, ornot-found, reopen nothing and report the routing problem. If the bead is alreadyin_progress, leave it unchanged.For a resolved closed bead, use the shared start path so the transition records the required claim attribution:
~/.agents/skills/next/scripts/next-select start <bead-id>
This local reopen does not authorize a push, reply, or resolution. If reopening fails, preserve the commit and report the bead mismatch; remote handoff preparation may continue.
8. Prepare the Remote Handoff
Draft replies only for selected items. Keep a bounded session ledger keyed by
repository/PR/identity/updateKey with validation, files/tests, commit SHA, intended reply surface,
prepared body, and resolution eligibility.
- Humans receive short polite responses with evidence.
- AI/bots receive terse factual responses when useful.
- A fixed item may reference the verified local commit without claiming it is pushed.
- A rationale must say no change was made.
- CI annotations, approvals, status noise, and skipped lifecycle records have no reply.
Do not call a reply, conversation-comment, or resolution helper here. Render the exact next command:
/reply-comments owner/repo#123 identity1 identity2 .../reply-comments must independently re-fetch and reconfirm push, posting, and resolution.
9. Summary
Map every selected record, including deferred and skipped items:
| Feedback ID | Validation | Files/tests/commit | Push state | Reply | Resolution |
Use local only for a new commit, not applicable when no change was made, prepared/not posted
for drafts, and not attempted for remote actions. Include unresolved uncertainty and the
repository-qualified /reply-comments handoff when anything is prepared.
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.

