babysit
Skill46 starsChanged 45 days agoBSD-3-ClauseView on GitHub
Continuously shepherd one GitHub pull request to a verified green state by addressing Codex automated review threads, fixing in-scope CI failures, and monitoring the exact current head until the stopping conditions hold. Use when the user says to babysit, shepherd, or keep watching a PR until it is ready; do not use for a one-time status check or to merge a PR.
44 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphustheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecodetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- nightly-labs/openbottheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- endqwerty/endstacktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- MMACABRE/SKILLStheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- babs/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use oh-my-issues, what-the and 10 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.
tuliosalustiano27Skilloh-my-issues
Cluster a GitHub issue backlog by root cause into a small set of plan-master issues, redirect children with a standardized comment, and bundle architectural-fix PRs that close clusters atomically. Use when an issue tracker has accumulated dozens of reports that share underlying defects, when asked to triage / consolidate / cluster / dedupe issues, when asked to build a plan series or roadmap from open issues, or when routing a new incoming bug into an existing plan.
Also in 3 projects that use this
tuliosalustiano27Skillwhat-the
What the? Use when the user wants a plain-English breakdown of something technical — the who, what, where, why, and when.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Tsumugii24Skillsplit-to-prs
Split current work into small reviewable PRs. Use when the user asks to split a chat, set of changes, branch, or PR.
Also in 4 projects that use this
mukcoSkillprinciples
General software engineering principles — DRY, SOLID, YAGNI, KISS, naming, code smells, and refactoring. Language-agnostic. Use alongside language-specific skills.
Also in 5 projects that use this
PandelisZSkillupdate-cli-config
View and modify Cursor CLI configuration settings in ~/.cursor/cli-config.json. Use when the user wants to change CLI settings, configure permissions, switch approval mode, enable vim mode, toggle display options, configure sandbox, or manage any CLI preferences.
Also in 3 projects that use this
32103210Skillmigrate-to-skills
Convert 'Applied intelligently' Cursor rules (.cursor/rules/*.mdc) and slash commands (.cursor/commands/*.md) to Agent Skills format (.cursor/skills/). Use when you want to migrate rules or commands to skills, convert .mdc rules to SKILL.md format, or consolidate commands into the skills directory.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions44 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 44
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- simstudioai/sim★ 30ksame name
- nightly-labs/openbot★ 6.3ksame name
- nubjs/nub★ 4.4ksame name
- deadlock-mod-manager/deadlock-mod-manager★ 584same name
- OutThisLife/brooklyn-skills★ 207same name
- getlago/lago-front★ 163same name
- Scino/fstack★ 18same name
- ArangoGutierrez/claude-toolkit★ 4same name
34 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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adversarial-reviewSkill
- implementSkill
- review-loopSkill
- specify-github-issuesSkill
- write-pull-requestSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
19 rules. 0 are common, 18 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 42 edited versions we read keep these.
18
Distinctive
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
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Very specific: line 12
When the user explicitly invokes $babysit, says to babysit or keep watching a PR, or otherwise requests persistence until a stated end …
- Distinctive: line 15
If goal-management tools are available, inspect the current goal.
- Distinctive: line 20
Do not create a goal for an ordinary one-time PR status or review request that happened to trigger the skill implicitly.
- Distinctive: line 27
Add or update focused tests when the fix needs regression coverage.
- Distinctive: line 28
Commit and push those repairs without rewriting branch history.
- Distinctive: line 42
Treat a thread as Codex-generated only when its author or application metadata clearly identifies the configured Codex/OpenAI automated …
- Distinctive: line 45
If the PR is closed, merged, inaccessible, or does not have a safely writable branch, stop making changes and report the terminal condition …
- Distinctive: line 55
If the finding remains valid, make the smallest complete fix and run focused validation.
- Distinctive: line 56
If the current head already addresses it, or evidence shows it does not apply, reply with that concrete evidence.
- Distinctive: line 58
After any push, refresh the PR head and restart review-thread and CI evaluation from the new SHA.
- Distinctive: line 60
Do not broaden a narrow finding into speculative cleanup.
- Distinctive: line 66
When a check fails:
- Distinctive: line 68
Read the failing job and step logs.
- Distinctive: line 73
Use bounded waits or monitoring tools and refresh on state changes.
- Distinctive: line 84
Every in-scope Codex automated review thread is resolved, and no current-head Codex review still requests changes.
- Distinctive: line 85
Every required check is successful or otherwise accepted by GitHub, every relevant head check is terminal, and none is failing, cancelled, …
- Distinctive: line 86
All babysit repairs are committed and pushed, with no unpushed or unintended local changes.
- Distinctive: line 91
When the contract holds, mark an active goal complete and report the PR URL, verified head SHA, resolved Codex thread count, final check …
- Distinctive: line 93
If progress requires new authority, a product decision, credentials, secrets, access to an external system, or a destructive operation, …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 42 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
Babysit a Pull Request
Own the follow-through for one PR. Keep working across review and CI cycles; do not stop merely because a fix was pushed or one snapshot was green.
Start a Durable Objective
When the user explicitly invokes $babysit, says to babysit or keep watching a PR, or otherwise requests persistence until a stated end condition:
- Resolve the exact repository and PR from the supplied URL or number, or from the current branch.
- If goal-management tools are available, inspect the current goal. Continue a matching goal, create one when none exists, and do not replace a different active goal without user direction.
- Set the objective to babysit that exact PR without merging until the current head has no unresolved in-scope Codex review threads, all required and relevant CI is successful, all repairs are pushed, and the final verification is stable. Do not set a token budget unless the user requested one.
A skill cannot type a composer slash command on the user's behalf. Use the runtime's goal tools when exposed. If they are unavailable, run the same loop in the current turn and state that persistence across turns is not guaranteed.
Do not create a goal for an ordinary one-time PR status or review request that happened to trigger the skill implicitly.
Authority and Boundaries
An explicit babysit request authorizes the routine mutations needed to satisfy this workflow on the PR's existing branch:
- Make minimal fixes for verified Codex findings or branch-caused CI failures.
- Add or update focused tests when the fix needs regression coverage.
- Commit and push those repairs without rewriting branch history.
- Reply to and resolve verified Codex automated review threads after their concern is addressed or shown not to apply.
- Retry a check once on an unchanged head when evidence identifies a transient infrastructure failure.
It does not authorize merging, approving, marking ready for review, changing the PR base, force-pushing, dismissing reviews, resolving human-authored threads, changing secrets, or performing production or deployment mutations. Obtain separate authorization for those actions.
Preserve unrelated local work. Use a clean isolated worktree at the exact PR head when the active checkout is dirty, belongs to another branch, or could be disrupted.
Establish the Live State
At the beginning of every cycle:
- Refresh the PR's open/draft state, base and head refs, head SHA, mergeability, review decision, and check rollup. Fetch the exact refs before making repository-state claims.
- Query GitHub review threads through GraphQL, including thread IDs, resolution and outdated state, file and line anchors, comment authors, bodies, timestamps, and URLs. Flat PR comments are not sufficient for determining unresolved thread state.
- Treat a thread as Codex-generated only when its author or application metadata clearly identifies the configured Codex/OpenAI automated reviewer. Leave ambiguous or human-authored threads untouched and report them separately.
- Identify required checks and every relevant check running on the current head. Never reuse a green result from an older SHA.
If the PR is closed, merged, inaccessible, or does not have a safely writable branch, stop making changes and report the terminal condition or permission blocker.
Reconciliation Loop
Repeat the following until the completion contract holds:
Handle Codex Review Threads
For each unresolved in-scope thread, inspect the current code and surrounding behavior rather than trusting the thread's age or outdated marker.
- If the finding remains valid, make the smallest complete fix and run focused validation.
- If the current head already addresses it, or evidence shows it does not apply, reply with that concrete evidence.
- Resolve the thread only after the concern is addressed or rebutted. An outdated diff anchor alone is not proof of resolution.
- After any push, refresh the PR head and restart review-thread and CI evaluation from the new SHA.
Do not broaden a narrow finding into speculative cleanup. Group only changes that belong to the same verified repair.
Drive CI to Green
Monitor checks on the current head. Treat queued, pending, in-progress, failed, timed-out, action-required, stale, and cancelled checks as non-green.
When a check fails:
- Read the failing job and step logs.
- Decide whether the failure is caused by the PR, a real base-branch problem, or transient infrastructure.
- For a branch-caused failure, reproduce it when practical, make the narrowest fix, run the relevant local validation, commit, and push.
- Retry only a verified transient failure, at most once per unchanged head. Do not repeatedly rerun an unchanged deterministic failure.
Use bounded waits or monitoring tools and refresh on state changes. Keep the user informed during long waits without producing repetitive unchanged updates.
Recheck After Automation Settles
Do not assume the absence of current comments means automated review is finished. If the PR exposes a pending Codex review request, review job, or other repository-specific completion signal, wait for it. Once checks and review automation appear settled, take a fresh final snapshot; any new commit, thread, review, or check restarts the loop.
Completion Contract
Complete successfully only when a final live read verifies all of the following against the same head SHA:
- The PR is still open and the head SHA is unchanged across the final verification.
- Every in-scope Codex automated review thread is resolved, and no current-head Codex review still requests changes.
- Every required check is successful or otherwise accepted by GitHub, every relevant head check is terminal, and none is failing, cancelled, or pending.
- All babysit repairs are committed and pushed, with no unpushed or unintended local changes.
- A final refresh after CI and review automation settled found no new work.
Human-authored unresolved threads are outside the default mutation scope. Report them clearly and do not claim the PR is globally review-complete; they block completion only when the user asked to resolve all reviewers' threads.
When the contract holds, mark an active goal complete and report the PR URL, verified head SHA, resolved Codex thread count, final check state, mutations made, and anything explicitly left out of scope. Never merge as part of this skill.
If progress requires new authority, a product decision, credentials, secrets, access to an external system, or a destructive operation, request that input instead of guessing. Keep an active goal open unless the goal runtime's blocked criteria are actually met.
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.

