pr-fix
Skill43 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Bring a PR to mergeable — fix CI failures, address review comments, and resolve merge conflicts. Runs either from a supplied watcher worklist (delegated mode, one pass) or from its own assessment (direct mode, looping until clear). Use after opening a PR when CI is red, reviewers have left comments, or the branch conflicts with its base.
10 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- GDriem/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- withpiper/pipekittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- apokamo/kajitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Smirnov-Labs/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- wyattjoh/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 27, 2026
- yamadashy/skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 11, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use oss-pr, pr-automation and 7 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.
CES-LtdSkilloss-pr
Use when creating a pull request, after committing changes, or when user invokes /oss-pr. Covers branch management, quality checks, commit, push, and PR creation.
Also in 3 projects that use this
CES-LtdSkillpr-automation
PR Automation Orchestrator: poll open PRs, check CI, run review, fix, and merge eligible PRs. Use when: (1) Invoked by daemon via scripts/pr-automation.sh, (2) User says "/pr-automation".
Also in 3 projects that use this
AI-AnswerSkillpr-verify
PR Verification & Merge: verify bot:ready-to-merge PRs with impact analysis, test supplementation, and one-click merge. Use when: (1) User says "/pr-verify", (2) User wants to verify and merge ready PRs.
Also in 3 projects that use this
lbednerSkilli18n
Use when a code or template change introduces a new translation message key, in either the framework CLI (aegis/i18n/locales/) or a generated project's CLI (the app/i18n/locales/ template tree). Covers adding the real English string, stubbing the same key into every other locale for parity, and the separate translation PR that later replaces placeholders with reviewed native text.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillbump-version
Bump the VoxelPic version to a user-specified value. USE FOR: setting or updating the project version across all files that embed it. Applies to requests like 'bump version to X.Y.Z', 'set version', or 'update version'.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AnthropicSkillarchitecture
Create or evaluate an architecture decision record (ADR). Use when choosing between technologies (e.g., Kafka vs SQS), documenting a design decision with trade-offs and consequences, reviewing a system design proposal, or designing a new component from requirements and constraints.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +2 more from CES-Ltd
Other versions10 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 10
- FerroxLabs/wayland★ 606same name
- CES-Ltd/TitanX★ 47same name
- apokamo/kaji★ 16same name
- AI-Answer/Agent-Club★ 9same name
- yamadashy/skills★ 7same name
- Smirnov-Labs/claude-skills★ 6same name
- withpiper/pipekit★ 6same name
- GDriem/agent-skills★ 4same name
- wyattjoh/skills★ 3same name
- volovely/ClaudeSkills★ 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 repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- build-write-like-meSkill
- clarifySkill
- commitSkill
- deliver-prSkill
- exploreSkill
- implementSkill
- open-prSkill
- planSkill
- pr-monitorSkill
- rebaseSkill
- relay-archiveSkill
- relay-statusSkill
- review-prSkill
- reviewSkill
- simplifySkill
- stack-shipSkill
- tlSkill
- todoSkill
- validateSkill
- write-like-meSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 21
Skip step 1's broad assessment: Do not re-run the PR/comment/thread/check sweep and do not build a full context bundle — the watcher …
- Very specific: line 32
Never: run relay pr watch tick or status, and never schedule anything.
- Distinctive: line 57
Every reply you post to a pull request starts with these two lines, then a blank line, then the reply:
- Distinctive: line 102
Before editing, materialize the remote PR context onto the local filesystem so the fix is based on a stable, inspectable record rather than …
- Distinctive: line 109
CI failures — Stop-the-Line, red-loop-first: Do not blindly do what the error message literally says.
- Distinctive: line 111
Reproduce locally first: Run the repo's own failing command to get a tight red loop.
- Distinctive: line 116
Regression test: red before, green after: Add/adjust a test that fails without your fix and passes with it.
- Very specific: line 143
Every reply carries the marker naming that item's answers token and the visible 🤖 <agent> on behalf of <author> disclosure, and goes on …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 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
PR Fix
Drive a PR to a mergeable state: a green CI, every review comment fixed-and-resolved or
replied-and-flagged, and no merge conflicts with the base. Work the three
fronts — CI, comments, conflicts — and loop until all are clear. Fix root causes, never silence
failures or guess an author's intent. Use review's shared severity vocabulary (Critical / Important /
Suggestion). Run independent investigations as sub-agents when available; otherwise do them inline.
Two modes — check your input first
Delegated mode — a caller supplied a watcher worklist. pr-monitor hands you items taken from a
relay pr watch digest: each carries reason, source, id, answers, updatedAt, body,
thread_id, path, line, and for checks the check_name and check_run_id. That worklist is complete and
authoritative:
- Skip step 1's broad assessment. Do not re-run the PR/comment/thread/check sweep and do not build
a full context bundle — the watcher already observed all of it. Bind
REPOandPRand go straight to the work. - Fetch only what the specific item needs: the failed run's log for a
check_run_id,git log/git blamefor a conflicting hunk, the file under an inline comment. - Fix once, then return — no reassessment loop. The watcher re-observes after your push, and the next attention event carries whatever is left.
- Return a structured result, one entry per supplied item: the item id, what you did,
fixed,replied,escalated,ignored_non_actionable, orfailed, and the reason when it is notfixed. Report pushed commits and the new head SHA.ignored_non_actionablemeans no reply, reaction, resolution, or other GitHub mutation was made for that item. - Never run
relay pr watch tickorstatus, and never schedule anything. The caller owns the watcher record.
Direct mode — no worklist was supplied. Assess the PR yourself and loop until clear, exactly as described below. This is the manual path and it is unchanged.
Quick commands
| Task | Command |
| PR + check status | gh pr view --json number,title,state,statusCheckRollup,mergeable |
| CI checks | gh pr checks |
| Failed run logs | gh run view <RUN_ID> --log-failed |
| Inline review comments | gh api "repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR/comments" --jq '.[] | {id,user:.user.login,path,line,body}' |
| Reply to an inline comment | gh api "repos/$REPO/pulls/comments/<ID>/replies" -f body="$BODY" |
| Reply to a conversation comment | gh pr comment "$PR" --body "$BODY" |
| Reply to a review body | gh pr review "$PR" --comment --body "$BODY" |
| Resolve a thread (after fixing) | gh api graphql -f query='mutation($t:ID!){resolveReviewThread(input:{threadId:$t}){thread{isResolved}}}' -F t=<THREAD_ID> |
<RUN_ID> comes from a delegated item's check_run_id, or from gh pr checks / statusCheckRollup;
a <THREAD_ID> comes from a delegated item's thread_id, or from the GraphQL reviewThreads query.
gh has no native thread-resolve — resolving requires the GraphQL mutation above.
Every automated reply — exact marker, visible disclosure, same source
Every reply you post to a pull request starts with these two lines, then a blank line, then the reply:
<!-- relay-agent-reply answers=<item answers token> -->
🤖 <agent> on behalf of <author>The HTML comment is invisible on GitHub and is the only thing that tells the relay pr watch
runtime an agent wrote a reply. A reply without it is read as fresh human feedback and will wake the
owner again forever; the emoji line alone is not enough, because a human can type an emoji. The
disclosure line is the human-visible half of the same promise: never write as if you were the author.
The marker must name the exact item it answers — copy the item's answers field verbatim. Every
digest item carries one, and the watcher matches replies by that id, never by time. A marker that
names nothing (<!-- relay-agent-reply answers= --> or the bare marker) answers nothing on a
conversation, a review, or a thread, so the item keeps waking the owner. A marker that names the
wrong id answers the wrong thing — and never the one in front of you.
This is not bookkeeping. A reviewer can write a second comment between the watcher's last look and your reply, and the watcher has never shown it to anybody: a reply anchored to the id you were given leaves that comment actionable, while an unanchored one buries it.
Reply on the same source you are answering. The watcher reconciles each source independently, so an answer posted somewhere else does not answer anything:
| Item | Reply with | Marker |
new-comment | gh pr comment — the pull request conversation | answers=comment:200 |
new-review | gh pr review --comment — a review, not a conversation comment | answers=review:100 |
new-inline-comment | the inline replies endpoint on that comment | answers=inline-comment:300 |
unresolved-thread | the inline replies endpoint on that thread | answers=review-thread:<thread-id>:<comment-id> |
changes-requested | gh pr review --comment on the review that requested them | answers=review:100 |
The ids in that column are examples; the item's own answers token is the truth. A thread's token
names the exact comment the digest reported, because a new reply arriving beside it is a different
item the watcher must still be able to surface.
Process
Assess. (Direct mode only — delegated mode skips this entirely and uses the supplied worklist.)
REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner --jq .nameWithOwner),PR=$(gh pr view --json number --jq .number). Pull check status, the comment list, andmergeable. Triage into the three fronts below. Detect the repo's OWN build/test/lint commands from itsMakefile,package.jsonscripts, or CI config (.github/workflows/*) — never assume a toolchain.Before editing, materialize the remote PR context onto the local filesystem so the fix is based on a stable, inspectable record rather than scattered terminal output. Use a non-committed directory under the git metadata dir, e.g.
CTX_DIR="$(git rev-parse --git-dir)/relay/pr-fix/$PR", and write at least: PR metadata,statusCheckRollup,gh pr checks, inline review comments, review threads, failed-run logs, the base-vs-head diff, and the discovered build/test commands. Re-read those files to plan the fix. Refresh the bundle after every push before deciding the PR is clear.CI failures — Stop-the-Line, red-loop-first. Do not blindly do what the error message literally says; diagnose. For each failing check:
- Reproduce locally first. Run the repo's own failing command to get a tight red loop. If it only fails in CI, line up versions/env before guessing.
- Localize, then minimize. Find the failing layer (triage table below), then shrink to the smallest failing case — one test, one file.
- Fix the ROOT cause, not the symptom.
- Regression test: red before, green after. Add/adjust a test that fails without your fix and passes with it. Re-run the repo's full check command end to end until green.
- Never silence a failure — no deleting or skipping a test, no lint-suppression, no loosened assertion to go green. A test that now fails means behavior changed: fix the code, not the test.
Category Tell Route Type type/compile error, signature mismatch fix the type or the call site at the root Import unresolved/circular import, missing symbol fix the path/export; do not stub it out Config failing lint/format/CI step config match the repo's configured rule, don't suppress Dependency version/lockfile/resolution error reconcile the manifest + lockfile together Environment passes locally, fails only in CI align runtime/version/env vars with CI - Review comments — classify each, then act.
- Non-actionable (praise, thanks, FYI/status-only notes, approvals, duplicate summaries,
automated "no findings" / "no important findings" reports, or any comment with no concrete
defect, question, requested change, requested decision, or blocker): do nothing on GitHub. Do
not post an acknowledgment such as "Acknowledged", do not react, and do not resolve an
unresolved thread merely to clear it. In delegated mode return
ignored_non_actionablewith a short reason; in direct mode exclude it from the actionable worklist. - Obvious gap-fix (a clear bug, a missing test, a style/rule violation, a one-right-answer
mechanical change): implement it, reply describing exactly what changed, and resolve the thread
(GraphQL
resolveReviewThread— see Quick commands). Only mark a thread resolved once the fix is pushed; if you can't resolve it programmatically, say so rather than claiming it's done. - Author decision (changes intended behavior, API shape, or scope; two-plus reasonable answers): do NOT guess. Reply asking for input, FLAG it to the author, and leave the thread open.
- When unsure which it is, treat it as a decision and surface it.
- Every reply carries the marker naming that item's
answerstoken and the visible🤖 <agent> on behalf of <author>disclosure, and goes on the same source it answers.
- Non-actionable (praise, thanks, FYI/status-only notes, approvals, duplicate summaries,
automated "no findings" / "no important findings" reports, or any comment with no concrete
defect, question, requested change, requested decision, or blocker): do nothing on GitHub. Do
not post an acknowledgment such as "Acknowledged", do not react, and do not resolve an
unresolved thread merely to clear it. In delegated mode return
- Merge conflicts — research both intents, never abort. Rebase/merge onto the base. For each
conflict, research the intent behind BOTH sides before resolving — read the commit messages and the
PR that introduced each hunk (
git log,git blame,gh pr view). Preserve both intents where feasible. NEVER--abortthe rebase/merge; resolve forward. Re-run the repo's validation after resolving and before continuing. Then confirm your work survived — your branch's commits are still ingit logand the net diff against the base still contains your intended changes; a resolve-forward can silently drop a hunk even when validation passes. - Loop until clear. (Direct mode only.) Commit and push fixes, then re-assess (step 1). Repeat until CI is green and every actionable comment is addressed — fixed+resolved, or replied+flagged. Non-actionable comments require no acknowledgment and do not block completion. Surface the flagged decisions to the caller as the remaining blockers. In delegated mode, stop after one pass and return the per-item result instead; the watcher re-observes and the caller decides what happens next.
Red flags
- Doing what the error message literally says without diagnosing the root cause.
- Deleting/skipping a test, suppressing a lint, or weakening an assertion to turn a check green.
- Editing a failing test instead of the code it caught — a red test means behavior changed.
- Guessing an author-decision comment instead of replying and flagging it.
- Replying to a non-actionable comment just to acknowledge it, including "no findings" or "no important findings" review summaries.
- A reply that reads as the human author's own words, with no automated-agent disclosure.
- A reply missing the marker, naming no
answerstoken, naming an id you invented instead of the item's own, or posted on a different source than the one it answers — every one of those either keeps waking the owner or answers something nobody asked about. - Running
git rebase --abort/git merge --abortinstead of resolving the conflict. - Resolving a conflict by keeping one side without understanding why the other side exists.
- Assuming
npm/make/etc. instead of the command the repo's own config actually uses. - Fixing from transient terminal output instead of a local PR context bundle that can be re-read and refreshed. (Direct mode; in delegated mode the supplied worklist is that record.)
- Re-fetching the whole PR context, or looping, when a delegated worklist was supplied.
- Touching the watcher record —
relay pr watch tickandstatusbelong to the caller.
Verification checklist
- In delegated mode: every supplied item has a returned outcome, no broad re-fetch or reassessment loop ran, and the watcher record was left untouched.
- In direct mode:
gh pr checksis fully green; each fix reproduced a local red loop and has a red-before/green-after regression test. - Direct mode captured the remote PR context locally before edits and refreshed it after each push.
- No failure was silenced (no skipped/deleted test, no lint-suppression, no loosened assertion).
- Every actionable review comment is fixed+resolved, or replied+flagged as an author decision left open; non-actionable comments received no reply, reaction, or resolution.
- Every agent reply carries the marker with that item's exact
answerstoken and the visible disclosure, and was posted on the same source it answers. - All conflicts resolved forward (no abort), both intents researched and preserved, validation re-run after.
- After any rebase, confirmed my branch's commits survived (still in
git log; net diff vs base still carries my changes). - Findings reported with the shared severity vocabulary (Critical / Important / Suggestion).
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.

