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
- Very specific: line 14
Read and follow ../../../.opencode/skills/swarm-pr-feedback/SKILL.md as the canonical workflow.
- Distinctive: line 23
Do not resolve GitHub review threads unless the user explicitly instructs it.
≈ “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.
Files
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/Tasksubagents 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 tobucket == "fail" || bucket == "cancel", then fetch each failed log withgh 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-reviewhandoff 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 anoutput_ref, treat inlineoutputas a preview and callretrieve_lane_outputfor 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 --checkplus 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 orderedswarm-pr-feedback:stage-b-reviewer,:stage-b-test,:closeout-reviewer, and:closeout-criticstructured modes,complete_pr_workflowarming, 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.
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm★ 517100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository66 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- ci-fix-monitorSkill
- codebase-review-swarmSkill
- commit-prSkill
- contributingSkill
- engineering-conventionsSkill
- fork-pr-operationsSkill
- guardrail-patternsSkill
- issue-tracerSkill
- mock-to-internals-migrationSkill
- pr-review-fixSkill
- qa-sweepSkill
- research-firstSkill
- running-testsSkill
- subprocess-safetySkill
- swarm-ci-monitorSkill
- swarm-implementSkill
- swarm-pr-feedbackSkill
- swarm-pr-reviewSkill
- swarm-pr-subscribeSkill
- swarmSkill
- tech-debt-ci-reviewSkill
- test-file-splitSkill
- unswarmSkill
- writing-testsSkill
- brainstormSkill
- clarifySkill
- clarify-specSkill
- codebase-review-swarmSkill
- commit-prSkill
- consultSkill
- councilSkill
- critic-gateSkill
- deep-diveSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- design-docsSkill
- discoverSkill
- durable-session-stateSkill
- editing-skillsSkill
- engineering-conventionsSkill
- executeSkill
- fork-pr-operationsSkill
- graphifySkill
- issue-ingestSkill
- issue-tracerSkill
- orchestrating-subagentsSkill
- phase-wrapSkill
- pre-phase-briefingSkill
- qa-sweepSkill
- research-firstSkill
- rust-crate-ciSkill
- specifySkill
- swarm-ci-monitorSkill
- swarm-implementSkill
- swarm-planSkill
- swarm-pr-reviewSkill
- swarm-pr-subscribeSkill
- swarm-resumeSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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.

