本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

pr-review-comments

Review, triage, and resolve PR review comments. Use when user asks to check PR comments, address review feedback, fix issues raised in review, reply to reviewers, or resolve review threads.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md4.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

PR Review Comments

Triage and address review comments on a pull request: read each comment, decide if valid, fix code, verify tests pass, reply, and resolve threads.

Prerequisites

  • gh CLI authenticated
  • Working directory inside the repo (or use --repo owner/repo)

Workflow

1. Fetch review comments

Get all review comments with context:

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments \
  --jq '.[] | {id, path, line, body, user: .user.login}'

Also check top-level PR comments (non-inline):

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{pr}/comments \
  --jq '.[] | {id, body, user: .user.login}'

2. Triage each comment

For each comment, decide:

  • Valid & actionable → fix the code
  • Valid but won't fix → reply with rationale
  • Invalid / misunderstanding → reply with explanation
  • Question → answer it

Read the relevant file context before deciding. Don't blindly accept or reject.

3. Fix code

Apply fixes for valid comments. Group related fixes into a single commit. Use conventional commit style:

fix(<scope>): address PR review comments

- <summary of fix 1>
- <summary of fix 2>

Stage, commit, and push.

4. Validate tests pass

After fixing code, always run tests before pushing to make sure the fixes don't break anything:

  • Run the project's test command (check project docs / CLAUDE.md / Makefile / mise tasks for the right command).
  • If tests fail, fix the issue before pushing. A review fix that breaks CI is worse than the original comment.
  • If the fix changes test expectations (e.g., updated output values), update the tests too.
  • Pay special attention to mock/stub setups — removing or changing mocks can cause unrelated tests to fail when test infrastructure intercepts more than expected (e.g., mock_provider intercepting locally-evaluated data sources).

Only push once all tests are green.

5. Reply to comments

Reply to each review comment thread using the in_reply_to field:

gh api -X POST repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments \
  -f body="<reply text>" \
  -F in_reply_to=<original_comment_id>

Important: The in_reply_to parameter must be a number (-F), not a string (-f). Use -F for numeric values.

Keep replies concise: state what was done or why not.

6. Resolve threads

Fetch unresolved thread node IDs via GraphQL:

gh api graphql -f query='
{
  repository(owner: "{owner}", name: "{repo}") {
    pullRequest(number: {pr}) {
      reviewThreads(first: 50) {
        nodes {
          id
          isResolved
          comments(first: 1) {
            nodes { databaseId body }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}' --jq '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes[] | select(.isResolved == false) | {id, commentId: .comments.nodes[0].databaseId, body: (.comments.nodes[0].body[:80])}'

Resolve each thread after replying:

gh api graphql -f query='
mutation {
  resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "<thread_node_id>"}) {
    thread { isResolved }
  }
}'

Loop over all thread IDs to resolve in batch:

for tid in PRRT_abc PRRT_def PRRT_ghi; do
  gh api graphql -f query="mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: \"$tid\"}) { thread { isResolved } } }"
done

Rules

  • Read before deciding. Always read the file/context around the commented line before accepting or rejecting.
  • Don't blindly accept. Evaluate each comment on merit. Some automated/AI review comments are wrong.
  • Don't blindly reject. If a comment points out a real issue, fix it even if the wording is off.
  • Test before pushing. Run the full test suite (or at minimum the affected module's tests) after every fix. Never push code you haven't validated.
  • Codify repeatable findings. If a fixed comment is mechanically enforceable or clearly recurring, add a guard in the same commit via the review-guards skill (ast-grep rule with test; qualitative → a line in REVIEW_GUIDELINES.md).
  • One commit for all fixes. Don't create separate commits per comment unless changes are unrelated.
  • Reply to every comment. Even if resolved by a code change, confirm what was done.
  • Resolve only after replying. Don't resolve threads without a reply — reviewers need to see acknowledgment.
  • Push before replying. The fix commit should be visible in the PR when the reviewer reads the reply.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Explain a GitHub pull request as an English Markdown walkthrough and return a Plannotator share link. Use for PR explanations, walkthroughs, or review preparation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tomsej/pi-ext782026年9月4日 更新

Codify project review rules as deterministic guards — ast-grep structural rules (with TDD-style rule tests) for mechanical checks, REVIEW_GUIDELINES.md for qualitative ones, wired into the project gate / wf verify. Use when the user wants to define review rules, turn a repeated review finding into a lint/guard, or set up ast-grep in a project.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tomsej/pi-ext782026年9月4日 更新

sem

無料

Entity-aware code change analysis using the pi-sem tools. Use when the user asks what changed, wants blast radius or affected tests, needs focused context for a function/class, wants review help on a commit/branch/PR, or asks to compare semantic diff with raw git diff. Prefer sem_context and sem_impact; use sem_diff selectively for summaries and reviews.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tomsej/pi-ext782026年9月4日 更新

wf

無料

Vytvoř workflow kontrakt z dosavadní diskuse — zapíše ~/Workspace/specs/<projekt>/<název>/contract.md (české tělo + strojový frontmatter) a zlintuje ho wf-gate. Použij, když uživatel řekne /wf nebo chce z probraného problému udělat kontrakt. Nikdy neimplementuje.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tomsej/pi-ext782026年9月4日 更新

České vysvětlení změny kódu z kontraktu, ref range nebo PR — pozadí, intuice, průchod kódem, důkazy, UAT a kvíz. Volá wf-impl po UAT nebo uživatel ručně.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tomsej/pi-ext782026年9月4日 更新

wf-impl

無料

Dirigent jednoho workflow kontraktu ve svém super.engineering worktree — deleguje implementaci na subagenta, mezi fázemi pouští wf-gate, review předá skill wf-review, otevře draft PR (guardovaný), vyřeší komentáře, spustí UAT. Použij, když task session říká, že se má kontrakt provést přes wf-impl.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tomsej/pi-ext782026年9月4日 更新

tomsej のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する