agentleFS
sd0xdevsd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow/skills/pr-comment/SKILL.md

pr-comment

Skill192 starsChanged 37 days agoMITView on GitHub

Post friendly review comments to a GitHub PR — prepare locally, preview, then submit as atomic review. Use when: posting code review comments, giving PR feedback, sending inline suggestions. Not for: reading existing reviews (use load-pr-review), creating PRs (use create-pr), PR status (use pr-summary).

6 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Write the comments to a temp JSON file, then run:

    line 107
  2. Distinctive:

    If invalid comments exist, show them with reasons.

    line 130
  3. Distinctive:

    If warnings exist, note them but include in payload.

    line 131
  4. Distinctive:

    Use AskUserQuestion to get user approval before submitting.

    line 135
  5. Distinctive:

    If submit returns exit 3:

    line 156

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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.

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

PR Comment

Trigger Keywords

pr comment, review comment, post comment, send review, pr feedback, inline comment

When NOT to Use

NeedUse Instead
Read existing PR review comments/load-pr-review
Create a code review (automated)/codex-review-fast or /codex-review
Create a PR/create-pr
PR status overview/pr-summary

Core Principle

Discuss locally → prepare friendly comments → dry-run preview → user confirms → atomic submit
Control plane (this SKILL.md) handles conversation, tone, orchestration.
Data plane (JS script) handles validation, API calls, safety.

Tone Guidelines

Claude prepares comments following these rules:

RuleDescriptionExample
Questions over commandsUse "would it make sense to" instead of "change this to""Would it make sense to extract this to a shared utility?"
Code, not personSubject is the code, not "you""This logic seems to..." not "You wrote..."
Explain whyGive the reason, not just the what"If one copy gets a bug fix but the other doesn't..."
Assume good intentConfirm rather than accuse"Just want to confirm this trade-off is intentional"
Praise firstAcknowledge before suggesting"This async design is great. One thought though..."
No emojiUnless user explicitly requests--
Follow PR languageMatch the language used in the PR--

Internal classification (Conventional Comments, not shown in output):

LabelPurposeBlocking
suggestionImprovement proposalConfigurable
questionClarificationNo
issuePoints out a problemYes
nitpickStylistic preferenceNo
praisePositive feedbackNo

Workflow

sequenceDiagram
    participant U as User
    participant C as Claude (Conversation)
    participant SK as SKILL.md (Orchestration)
    participant JS as pr-comment.js (Data Plane)
    participant GH as GitHub API

    Note over U,C: Phase 1: Natural conversation
    U->>C: Discuss PR diff, observations
    C->>U: Draft N friendly comments
    U->>C: Adjust tone / content / count

    Note over U,GH: Phase 2: Skill invoked
    U->>SK: /pr-comment [PR#]
    SK->>SK: Collect comments from conversation

    SK->>JS: prepare --pr N --repo owner/repo --input comments.json
    JS->>GH: gh pr view (metadata)
    JS->>GH: gh api pulls/N/files (changed files)
    JS->>GH: gh api pulls/N (head SHA)
    JS-->>SK: Validated payload + validation summary

    SK->>U: Dry-run preview (default)

    alt User confirms
        SK->>U: AskUserQuestion gate
        U->>SK: Approved
        SK->>JS: submit --pr N --repo owner/repo --input payload.json
        JS->>JS: Re-fetch head SHA, drift check
        JS->>GH: POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{N}/reviews
        GH-->>JS: 200/201 Success
        JS-->>SK: Success + review URL
        SK->>U: Review posted successfully
    end

Step-by-Step

Step 0: Collect Comments

From the conversation context, gather the user's review comments. Each comment needs:

FieldRequiredDefaultDescription
pathYes--File path (repo-relative)
lineYes--Line number (positive integer)
sideNoRIGHTRIGHT (new) or LEFT (deleted)
bodyYes--Comment content

Step 1: Prepare (Dry-run)

Write the comments to a temp JSON file, then run:

bash scripts/run-skill.sh pr-comment pr-comment.js \
  prepare --pr <N> --repo <owner/repo> --input <comments.json>

Parse the JSON output. Display to user:

## PR #<N>: <title>
**Target**: <owner/repo> | **Head**: <branch> | **State**: <state>

### Comments to Post (<valid>/<total> valid)

| # | File | Line | Side | Preview |
|---|------|------|------|---------|
| 1 | path/to/file.go | 136 | RIGHT | First 80 chars of body... |

### Validation
- Valid: N | Invalid: M (excluded) | Warnings: K

If invalid comments exist, show them with reasons. If warnings exist, note them but include in payload.

Step 2: Confirm

Use AskUserQuestion to get user approval before submitting.

Step 3: Submit

Save the prepare output (including payload) to a temp file, then run:

bash scripts/run-skill.sh pr-comment pr-comment.js \
  submit --pr <N> --repo <owner/repo> --input <payload.json>

Step 4: Handle Results

Exit CodeMeaningAction
0SuccessReport review URL
2Error (including 422)Report error details
3SHA driftWarn user, offer to re-prepare

SHA Drift Handling

If submit returns exit 3:

  1. Inform user: "PR head has changed since prepare"
  2. Re-run prepare with new SHA
  3. Show updated dry-run preview
  4. AskUserQuestion for re-confirmation
  5. Re-submit

Verification Checklist

  • Comments collected from conversation context
  • prepare validates paths against changed files
  • prepare validates line numbers (positive integer)
  • prepare validates body (non-empty)
  • Dry-run preview shown to user before submit
  • AskUserQuestion gate before submit
  • SHA drift detected and handled
  • Review URL reported on success
  • jq + temp file pattern used (no shell interpolation)

References

  • references/api-and-guardrails.md -- API contract + safety rules + exit codes

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.