agentleFS
zaxbysaucezaxbysauce/opencode-swarm/.claude/skills/swarm-pr-feedback/SKILL.md

swarm-pr-feedback

Skill517 starsChanged 3 days agoMITView on GitHub

Claude Code adapter for closing known PR feedback. Use when addressing pasted review feedback, GitHub review comments or threads, requested changes, CI/check failures, merge conflicts, stale PR branches, or PR follow-up work that must verify every claim before fixing it.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Read and follow ../../../.opencode/skills/swarm-pr-feedback/SKILL.md as the canonical workflow.

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not resolve GitHub review threads unless the user explicitly instructs it.

    line 23

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

Swarm PR Feedback

Read and follow ../../../.opencode/skills/swarm-pr-feedback/SKILL.md as the canonical workflow.

Claude Code Execution Notes

  • A plain Claude Code session has none of the plugin's mechanical controller tools: that is canonical Profile B, not an error. Never report BLOCKED merely because controller tools are absent — run verification lanes and gate roles as fresh Agent/Task subagents and keep the ledger, ownership partition, and digest accounting yourself in session task workspace files (never under .swarm/, which is plugin runtime state).
  • Batch-collect all CI failures before proposing any fix (Issue #1746). On GitHub, run gh pr checks <n> --json name,bucket,state,link, filter to bucket == "fail" || bucket == "cancel", then fetch each failed log with gh run view <run-id> --log-failed. On other hosts, use the host-equivalent API. Build the complete failure ledger in one batch before triaging or proposing fixes — do not iterate check-by-check through push cycles.
  • Check out the PR branch locally before dispatching feedback lanes or verifying/fixing anything. Fetch the head ref if absent, preserve or surface all dirty tracked/untracked state, prove full HEAD equals the authoritative PR head SHA, and prove the final branch tracks the intended PR head remote/branch. In Profile A, a detached exact-head intake is valid because the first bind attaches only one unambiguous exact tracking ref; Profiles B/C must establish the branch themselves. Never use force or submodule-recursive checkout.
  • Build the complete feedback ledger before editing: pasted feedback, GitHub comments/threads, requested changes, CI/check failures, merge conflicts, stale branch state, PR body claims, linked issues, commits, and any validated swarm-pr-review handoff artifact. Treat every item as a claim until source evidence proves or disproves it, and preserve original finding IDs and reviewer/critic provenance from handoff artifacts.
  • Verification lanes (Profile B): partition the immutable FB inventory across fresh read-only subagents — every item owned by exactly one lane, one [FEEDBACK-VERIFIED] row per owned item, the exact PR head SHA in every prompt — and read each subagent's full report. Under Profile A, when a lane result carries an output_ref, treat inline output as a preview and call retrieve_lane_output for the full artifact. Degraded, truncated, or incomplete reports keep their items open as coverage gaps: retry bounded, or surface the affected items as BLOCKED. No edits before verification settles.
  • Do not resolve GitHub review threads unless the user explicitly instructs it.
  • Mandatory gates — Stage A and Stage B (+ closeout) on every profile. Stage A always runs exact git diff --check plus one proof command — the exact failing CI/test reproduction when available, otherwise a repo-appropriate targeted regression/test command — plus every build, typecheck, and lint/format category mechanically discovered from the repository; it never invents a no-op category to reach a fixed count. On Profile B run these commands yourself and record command+output receipts in the ledger; any content change invalidates the receipts and restarts Stage A. Stage B: one fresh independent reviewer subagent, then one fresh test-engineer-role subagent, on the Stage-A-green diff. Closeout: a separate fresh reviewer + critic pair on the Stage-B-approved diff. One verdict row per FB ID at every gate; record both closeout verdicts in the session task-gates artifact per the durable-session-state guidance.
  • Only if this session actually exposes the plugin's mechanical tools, run Profile A instead: run_pr_feedback_stage_a, then the exact ordered swarm-pr-feedback:stage-b-reviewer, :stage-b-test, :closeout-reviewer, and :closeout-critic structured modes, complete_pr_workflow arming, and the bound single-ref push. While that controller is active, direct subagent calls and free-form verdict prose are not equivalent evidence, and any edit restarts the sequence at Stage A.
  • Publication (Profile B): after all gates pass on the unchanged diff, create one reviewed commit on the PR branch, push exactly that commit with a single non-force push through the repository's commit/PR workflow, then verify read-only that the remote head equals the pushed commit before any PR comment/body/thread write.

Final output must include a closure ledger for every original feedback item, including conflicts, stale branch state, obsolete CI, and generated-output drift when they affected the PR.

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.