address-review
Skill1 starsChanged 45 days agoMITView on GitHub
Turns PR review comments into a triaged change list, applies the accepted ones, and drafts replies to .workflow/<KEY>/review-response.md. Use when a PR has feedback to work through.
21 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- angusfretwell/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- azarakovskiy/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- osrim/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- michaelegner/architecture-intelligence-platformtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- enocgit/sdlc-kittheir own version, first seen Oct 31, 2026
- paologum/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use open-pr, pr-description and 4 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
Google CloudSkillopen-pr
Commits local changes to a new Git branch and opens a GitHub pull request through the configured GitHub MCP server. Use when proposing code changes in a new pull request. Don't use for local-only commits without a remote GitHub repository.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillpr-description
Draft Nacelle PR titles, pull request descriptions, commit titles, commit descriptions, and squash commit messages. Use when asked for PR or commit wording, a branch summary, or a PR description that can be used in a commit. Omit validation sections from commit bodies and remove filler.
Also in 3 projects that use this
DockerSkillreview-pr
Review one or more incoming Docker documentation pull requests as a maintainer. Independently validate technical claims, assess editorial fit and information architecture, choose a verdict, and draft exact inline or PR-wide feedback behind a confirmation gate. Use for requests such as "review PR 123", "is this PR correct?", "does this information belong here?", "validate this PR", or "help review backlog PRs". Do not use to maintain or fix a PR you own; use maintain-pr for that.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- MicrosoftSkill
pr-review
Verify the technical accuracy of a vscode-docs pull request against the VS Code source code in microsoft/vscode. Use when reviewing a docs PR for factual correctness: setting names, command IDs, default values, API shapes, keybindings, versioned availability, and described behavior.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Hugging FaceSkillimplement
Make tests pass. Invoke after /write-tests produces failing tests.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +1 more from microsoft
Other versions21 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 21
- oxcaml/oxcaml★ 932same name
- cashew-labs/libretto★ 898same name
- saffron-health/libretto★ 883same name
- gittower/git-flow-next★ 458same name
- finos/git-proxy★ 263same name
- fpindej/netrock★ 234same name
- saffron-health/opencode-gui★ 59same name
- michaelegner/architecture-intelligence-platform★ 10same name
- fedemelo/agent-config★ 4same name
- lestrrat/claude-code★ 4same name
11 more not listed
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 repository9 other files it gives its agents.
- draft-prSkill
- frame-productSkill
- implement-changeSkill
- plan-changeSkill
- review-diffSkill
- trace-incidentSkill
- triage-taskSkill
- write-commitSkill
- write-handoverSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 21 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 25
Do not silently drop a comment.
- Distinctive: line 55
Do not weaken a test to make review feedback pass: If the test now fails, say whether the change is wrong or the test encoded old behaviour.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 21 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
wb <args> # wb not on PATH: python <this skill's directory>/../../lib/wb.py <args>Steps
- Collect the comments. This plugin talks to issue trackers, not code
hosts, so use whatever the environment provides —
gh pr view --comments,gh api, the Azure DevOps CLI, or text the user pastes. If none is available, ask for the comments rather than guessing what they said. Triage each one into exactly one bucket, and say which:
- accept — correct, will change.
- question — cannot act until the reviewer clarifies; draft the question.
- disagree — will not change, with a reason and evidence.
- out of scope — real, but a separate ticket; name the follow-up.
Do not silently drop a comment. A reviewer who gets no answer assumes it was missed, and asks again.
- Verify before agreeing. A reviewer can be wrong about this codebase. Read
the code the comment refers to before accepting it —
../../shared/code-search.md— and quote the line in the reply when you disagree. - Apply the accepted changes. Same discipline as
implement-change: smallest diff, existing patterns, tests updated with the code. If a comment pushes the change outside the plan's file list, that is a plan change — updatesdd.jsonand re-runsdd audit <KEY>. - Re-verify.
impl verify <KEY>if a plan exists, otherwise the repo's test command. Review feedback is exactly when a regression slips in. - Re-review your own diff.
review contexton the new changes. - Write the replies to
.workflow/<KEY>/review-response.md, one per comment, each saying what was done or why not, citing code as`path:line` — `the line`.cite checkthat file (--worktreefor uncommitted changes) before showing it; posting is the user's call.
Rules
- Every comment gets an answer, including the ones you disagree with.
- Disagreement needs evidence.
file:lineand the actual line, not an assertion. If you cannot support it, the reviewer is probably right. - Never widen the change to satisfy a stylistic note. Offer the follow-up ticket instead.
- Do not weaken a test to make review feedback pass. If the test now fails, say whether the change is wrong or the test encoded old behaviour.
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.