pr-review-loop
npx skills add https://github.com/xpepper/pr-review-agent-skill --skill pr-review-loop
Agent 安装分布
Skill 文档
PR Review Loop
Purpose
Address all open PR review comments one at a time using an opinionated, resumable workflow. Works with comments from any reviewer (human or bot).
Typical invocations
Users trigger this skill with prompts like:
- “Address all open review comments on this PR”
- “Work through the code review feedback on PR #42”
- “Fix the review comments left by @alice on this pull request”
- “Use pr-review-loop on PR #123”
Prerequisites
ghCLI (preferred). If unavailable, fall back to any tool available to interact with GitHub.- The PR branch must be checked out locally.
Process
Step 1 â Pre-flight
Inspect the project for safeguard conventions by checking these files (if they exist):
CLAUDE.md,AGENTS.mdMakefile.github/workflows/README.md
Identify all required safeguards (tests, compilation, linting, formatting, etc.). Run all of them. If any fail, stop immediately and report â do not proceed on a broken baseline.
Step 2 â Get Current PR Number and Basic Info
# Get current PR details
gh pr status
# View PR with all comments
gh pr view
Step 3 â Collect Unresolved PR Comments (Source of Truth: reviewThreads)
# Fetch review threads and keep only unresolved ones.
gh api graphql -f query='
query($owner:String!, $name:String!, $number:Int!) {
repository(owner:$owner, name:$name) {
pullRequest(number:$number) {
reviewThreads(first:100) {
nodes {
id
isResolved
path
line
comments(first:20) {
nodes {
id
databaseId
author { login }
body
createdAt
replyTo { databaseId }
}
}
}
}
}
}
}' -f owner='{owner}' -f name='{repo}' -F number={pr_number} \
| jq '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes | map(select(.isResolved == false))'
Use unresolved reviewThreads as the canonical list for processing. Do not drive the workflow from /pulls/{pr}/comments alone.
Step 4 â Triage
Read the triage guide for the specific classification framework and examples. If the guide is not available, use the MUST_FIX / SHOULD_FIX / PARK / OUT_OF_SCOPE / NEEDS_CLARIFICATION classification with your own judgment (see definitions below).
Classify every unresolved comment as: MUST_FIX, SHOULD_FIX, PARK, OUT_OF_SCOPE, or NEEDS_CLARIFICATION.
Triage all comments before acting on any.
If a comment is non-actionable/no-op (e.g. acknowledgment, praise, emoji-only), classify as OUT_OF_SCOPE and reply with a short acknowledgment before resolving.
If a comment’s intent is genuinely ambiguous â multiple interpretations exist and each would lead to a meaningfully different change â classify as NEEDS_CLARIFICATION rather than guessing.
If Perplexity or other research tools are available and a comment requires external knowledge to classify (e.g., library idioms, language conventions), use them to inform your decision.
Step 5 â Process ONE comment at a time
Process in order: all MUST_FIX first, then SHOULD_FIX. Skip PARK and OUT_OF_SCOPE for now (they are handled in the summary).
NEEDS_CLARIFICATION comments: post one focused question as a reply to the thread (see format below), do not resolve the thread, and move on to the next comment. Do not implement anything.
Cascading comments: When multiple comments form a cascade (e.g., changing a trait signature requires updating all impls, callers, and tests), group them into a single commit referencing all comment IDs. Implement the full cascade atomically â applying any single comment without the others would leave the code in an inconsistent state.
For each comment (or group of cascading comments):
5a. Assess complexity
Is this trivial (e.g., rename a function, fix a typo, adjust formatting)?
- Yes â fix directly, no plan needed
- No â create a plan file at
.pr-review/plan-<comment-id>.mdbefore touching any code
The plan file must describe:
- What the comment is asking for
- The approach to fix it
- Files that will be changed
5b. Run safeguards
Run all safeguards identified in Step 1. They must all pass before you touch any code. If they fail, stop and report.
5c. Fix, park, or ask for clarification
- Fix: implement the change
- Fix with adaptation: if the reviewer’s suggestion is directionally right but the exact code won’t compile or is otherwise infeasible, implement the closest working alternative. Document the constraint in your reply (Step 5f) so the reviewer understands why the implementation differs from their suggestion.
- Park (if you discover mid-fix that it should be parked): write reasoning, revert any partial changes, no commit
- Ask for clarification (if you discover mid-assessment that the intent is genuinely ambiguous): post one focused question to the thread (see below), do not resolve, no commit, move on
Clarification question format (for NEEDS_CLARIFICATION or mid-assessment uncertainty):
cat > /tmp/pr-review-reply-{comment_id}.md <<'EOF'
Thanks for the feedback! Before I make a change, I want to make sure I understand what you're after:
<one specific, focused question â e.g. "Did you mean to rename this everywhere, or just at the call site?" or "Would you prefer approach A (â¦) or approach B (â¦)?">
EOF
jq -n --rawfile body /tmp/pr-review-reply-{comment_id}.md '{body:$body}' > /tmp/pr-review-reply-{comment_id}.json
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pull_number}/comments/{comment_id}/replies \
--input /tmp/pr-review-reply-{comment_id}.json
Ask exactly one question. Do not list alternatives unless directly needed to frame the question. Leave the thread unresolved so the reviewer’s answer re-surfaces it.
5d. Run safeguards again
Run all safeguards. They must all pass. If they fail, fix the regression before moving on â do not skip this step.
5e. Commit and push
Each comment gets its own focused commit. Reference the comment author in the message body.
git add <changed files>
git commit -m "<conventional commit message describing the fix>
Addresses PR comment from @<reviewer>."
git push
Example commit flow across multiple comments:
# Comment 1: Add missing documentation
git commit -m "docs: add module-level documentation for MetricsRecorder
Addresses PR comment from @reviewer about missing module docs."
git push
# Comment 2: Use Duration instead of i64
git commit -m "refactor: use Duration type for timing parameters
Addresses PR comment from @reviewer - improves type safety."
git push
5f. Reply to the PR comment
Post a reply on the PR comment explaining:
- What was done (for fixes: reference the commit)
- Why it was parked (for deferred items)
- Why it was rejected (for out-of-scope items)
Preferred (gh CLI):
# Avoid inline backticks/shell interpolation issues by writing body to a file.
cat > /tmp/pr-review-reply-{comment_id}.md <<'EOF'
<reply text>
EOF
jq -n --rawfile body /tmp/pr-review-reply-{comment_id}.md '{body:$body}' > /tmp/pr-review-reply-{comment_id}.json
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pull_number}/comments/{comment_id}/replies \
--input /tmp/pr-review-reply-{comment_id}.json
5f.1 Verify reply body
Immediately verify what was posted (to catch shell mangling):
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/comments/{new_reply_comment_id} | jq '{id, body, html_url}'
5g. Resolve the comment
Mark the comment as resolved on GitHub.
First, find the thread ID for the comment:
gh api graphql -f query='
query {
repository(owner: "{owner}", name: "{repo}") {
pullRequest(number: {pr_number}) {
reviewThreads(first: 50) {
nodes {
id
isResolved
comments(first: 1) { nodes { body } }
}
}
}
}
}'
Then resolve the thread:
gh api graphql -f query='
mutation {
resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "{thread_id}"}) {
thread { id isResolved }
}
}'
Verify resolution:
gh api graphql -f query='
query {
node(id: "{thread_id}") {
... on PullRequestReviewThread {
id
isResolved
}
}
}'
5h. Delete plan file
If a plan file was created, delete it:
rm .pr-review/plan-<comment-id>.md
Step 6 â Stop condition
Stop when no MUST_FIX or SHOULD_FIX comments remain.
If you prefer to batch-resolve all threads at once rather than one by one, you can do so here:
gh api graphql -f query='
query {
repository(owner: "{owner}", name: "{repo}") {
pullRequest(number: {pr_number}) {
reviewThreads(first: 50) {
nodes { id isResolved comments(first: 1) { nodes { body } } }
}
}
}
}' | jq -r '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes[] | select(.isResolved == false) | .id' \
| while read thread_id; do
gh api graphql -f query="mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: \"$thread_id\"}) { thread { id } } }"
done
Step 7 â Summary
Post a final comment on the PR summarising:
## PR Review Loop â Summary
### Fixed
- [commit abc1234] Renamed `foo` to `bar` (comment by @alice)
- ...
### Parked
- Refactor of X module deferred â tracked in #<issue> (comment by @bob)
- ...
### Rejected
- Suggestion to use Y rejected: project convention is Z (comment by @carol)
- ...
### Awaiting Clarification
- Asked @alice: "Did you mean to rename this everywhere, or just at the call site?" â thread left open
- ...
Omit any section that has no entries.
Use a body file to avoid shell interpolation:
cat > /tmp/pr-review-summary.md <<'EOF'
<summary text>
EOF
gh pr comment {pr_number} --body-file /tmp/pr-review-summary.md
Then verify the posted summary body:
gh pr view {pr_number} --comments
Resumability
This skill is designed to be interrupted and restarted in a fresh context at any point.
On startup:
- Run pre-flight (Step 1)
- Re-fetch unresolved comments from GitHub (Step 3) â already-resolved comments won’t appear
- Check for an existing
.pr-review/plan-*.mdfile â if found, you are mid-fix on that comment; continue from Step 4b - If the previous run was interrupted, verify the latest issue/comment bodies and thread states before continuing (to catch partially posted or malformed remote writes)
- Triage remaining comments and continue
This means no progress is ever lost. Each fix is committed and pushed before moving on.
State Directory
.pr-review/ at the repo root (gitignored by the project).
plan-<comment-id>.mdâ plan for the comment currently in progress (deleted after resolution)
Do Not
- Bundle all PR feedback into one large commit
- Make multiple unrelated changes in a single commit
- Push all changes at once without intermediate commits
- Leave comments unresolved after addressing them