agentleFS
Sign inStart free
trailofbitstrailofbits/coop/.agents/skills/babysit-pr/SKILL.md

babysit-pr

Skill808 starsChanged 9 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Shepherd the current user's open PR through base updates, CI failures, and review feedback without rewriting history or merging. Use when asked to babysit, monitor, or fix an existing PR.

55 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use leaving-pr-comments, sol-loop 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.
  • scottwaterSkill

    leaving-pr-comments

    Format comments an agent posts on GitHub on the user's behalf. Use whenever leaving a PR comment, review comment, or reply.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • scottwaterSkill

    sol-loop

    Review a change with GPT Sol in a loop until both agents agree. Use when the user says sol loop, or when another skill asks for a Sol review.

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • Nexus-Organization-InfosecSkill

    full-stop

    Shut down the Full Control phone-bridge completely — end Claude's watch loop, stop the bridge server (server.py started via ensure_server.ps1), and mark Claude offline in the app. Use whenever the user invokes /full-stop or says "stop full control", "stop the watch loop", "shut down the bridge/server", or "stop the ps1". Counterpart of [[full-control]], which starts everything.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • assisjpSkill

    file-pr

    Prepare and open or update an authorized pull request with a concise problem-first description and verifiable evidence. Use when the user asks to create, file, open, or update a PR. Do not use merely to review a diff or when publication is not authorized.

    Also in 13 projects that use this

  • shhacSkill

    full-send

    Complete an explicitly assigned task autonomously through parallel agents, peer-reviewed decisions, and automatic retries of temporary blockers. Use only when the user explicitly invokes Full Send.

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • assisjpSkill

    takeover

    Take over an existing branch, pull request, worktree, or agent handoff while preserving the original goal, contributor credit, and concurrent work. Use when the user asks to take over, finish, rescue, or continue someone else's implementation. Do not use to replace a clear request to start new work.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +1 more from scottwater

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 54 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Treat top-level CHANGES_REQUESTED reviews and structured bot comments as feedback even when no inline thread exists.

    line 26
  2. Very specific:

    After a pushed commit fixes an inline thread, reply exactly Fixed in <sha>.

    line 46

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 54 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

Babysit PR

One pass surveys the PR, acts on safe mechanical work, then reports. Do not merge, close, reopen, dismiss reviews, rewrite published history, or edit PR metadata unless asked.

Preconditions and survey

Require an authenticated gh, a clean git worktree, an open PR for the current branch, and ownership of its head branch. Stop on a dirty tree rather than stashing. A merged PR is terminal; a closed-unmerged PR needs user direction.

Gather once:

  • gh pr view with state, draft status, head/base refs and SHAs, merge state, review decision, check rollup, reviews, and comments;
  • base divergence after fetching the base;
  • inline reviewThreads through GraphQL (resolution is authoritative);
  • failed/pending run details and logs.

Treat top-level CHANGES_REQUESTED reviews and structured bot comments as feedback even when no inline thread exists. Do not assume a green-looking list is complete: compare the visible checks with the repository's required CI jobs.

Act in priority order

  1. Integrate a behind/conflicting base with git merge --no-ff origin/<base>. Never rebase. Resolve semantically; stop if the conflict crosses scope.
  2. Reproduce settled CI failures. Fix the underlying fmt, clippy, test, taplo, deny, or workflow issue. Surface flaky/environmental and real-VM integration failures rather than fabricating a code fix.
  3. Address unresolved review feedback only when the ask is concrete and mechanical. Verify the claim first. Escalate design, product, security, and scope decisions.

Make one logical change per commit. Run the narrow test plus format and clippy; run taplo for TOML. Never use --no-verify. Push normally and stop on rejection rather than force-pushing.

After a pushed commit fixes an inline thread, reply exactly Fixed in <sha>. or Fixed in <sha>: <one-line>., then resolve that thread. Do not reply or resolve before the fix is pushed, and never close a judgment-call thread for the user.

Re-survey once after changes. Report pushed commits, failed/pending checks, unresolved feedback, merge state, and absent integration/platform gates. If only an external signal remains, offer to monitor at an appropriate cadence; do not start recurring monitoring unless the user asked.

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.

Check your setup, free