본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

pr-review-response

Document responses to GitHub pull request reviews by replying to each comment thread after fixes are pushed. Connect feedback to specific changes and commits, explain rejected suggestions, and selectively resolve automated review threads.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Teaches agents to reply to PR review comment threads after fixing issues, making resolutions traceable

연동 도구GitHub
설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Explain fixes in each review comment thread
  • Record responses to Copilot suggestions
  • Explain why a review suggestion was not applied
  • Connect review feedback to the commits addressing it

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md10.5 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Context

When an agent fixes code in response to PR review comments (from Copilot, a human reviewer, or any GitHub reviewer), the fix alone is not enough. The reviewer needs to see — on the PR thread itself — which comments were addressed and how. Without replies, comments stay visually unresolved, reviewers must re-read the entire diff to verify fixes, and there's no traceable link between feedback and resolution.

Use this skill whenever:

  • You are fixing code based on PR review feedback
  • You are addressing Copilot review suggestions
  • You are responding to reviewer-requested changes on a PR
  • A squad member hands you review comments to resolve

SCOPE

✅ THIS SKILL PRODUCES:

  • Reply comments on each review thread explaining the fix
  • Optionally resolved threads (via GraphQL when appropriate)
  • Commit messages that reference the PR and review context

❌ THIS SKILL DOES NOT PRODUCE:

  • The code fixes themselves (that's the agent's domain work)
  • New review comments or reviews
  • PR descriptions or summaries

Patterns

Step 1: Read the review comments

Using MCP tools (preferred when available):

github-mcp-server-pull_request_read
  method: "get_review_comments"
  owner: "{owner}"
  repo: "{repo}"
  pullNumber: {pr_number}

This returns review threads with metadata: isResolved, isOutdated, isCollapsed, and their associated comments. Each comment has an id you'll need for replies.

Using gh CLI (fallback):

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments --paginate

Each comment object contains id, body, path, line, and in_reply_to_id. Top-level comments have no in_reply_to_id — those are the ones you reply to.

Step 2: Fix the code

Make the actual code changes. This is your normal domain work — the skill doesn't prescribe how to fix, only how to communicate the fix.

Track what you changed. For each review comment, note:

  • The comment id (top-level, not a reply)
  • The file and line referenced
  • What you actually changed (brief description)
  • The commit SHA after pushing (if available)

Step 3: Reply to each review thread

After fixing and committing, reply to each review comment thread individually.

REST API call (via gh CLI):

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments/{comment_id}/replies \
  -f body="Fixed in {sha_short} — {brief description of what was changed}"

Important: {comment_id} must be the ID of the top-level comment in the thread. You cannot reply to a reply — only to the original review comment.

Example replies:

# Specific and traceable
gh api repos/bradygaster/squad/pulls/42/comments/18234/replies \
  -f body="Fixed in a1b2c3d — switched to path.dirname(squadDirInfo.path) for worktree consistency"

# When applying a suggested code change
gh api repos/bradygaster/squad/pulls/42/comments/18235/replies \
  -f body="Applied suggestion — updated error message to include the file path for debuggability"

# When pushing back on a suggestion
gh api repos/bradygaster/squad/pulls/42/comments/18236/replies \
  -f body="Considered but not applied — this path needs to stay absolute because worktree resolution depends on it. See detectSquadDir() in detect-squad-dir.ts."

Step 4: Resolve threads (optional, GraphQL only)

Thread resolution is only available via the GitHub GraphQL API. Use this when your fix fully addresses the comment and no further discussion is needed.

First, get the thread IDs (they're different from comment IDs):

gh api graphql -f query='
  query {
    repository(owner: "{owner}", name: "{repo}") {
      pullRequest(number: {pr_number}) {
        reviewThreads(first: 100) {
          nodes {
            id
            isResolved
            comments(first: 1) {
              nodes { body databaseId }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
'

Match thread IDs to comment IDs using databaseId, then resolve:

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

When to resolve vs. leave open:

  • ✅ Resolve: You fixed exactly what was requested, no ambiguity
  • ❌ Don't resolve: You pushed back, applied a different fix, or the comment needs further discussion
  • ❌ Don't resolve: The reviewer is a human — let them confirm and resolve themselves

Rule of thumb: Agent-to-agent threads (e.g., Copilot review → agent fix) can be resolved by the fixer. Human reviewer threads should be left for the human to resolve.

Step 5: Commit message traceability

Commit messages should reference the PR context:

fix: address review feedback on PR #{pr_number}

- Switched to path.dirname() for worktree path resolution (comment #18234)
- Updated error message to include file path (comment #18235)

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

For single-comment fixes, a shorter format works:

fix: use path.dirname() for worktree consistency (PR #{pr_number} review)

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

AGENT WORKFLOW (Summary)

  1. READ — Fetch review threads using MCP tool or gh api
  2. FIX — Make code changes, tracking comment ID → change mapping
  3. COMMIT — Push with traceable commit message referencing PR and comments
  4. REPLY — Post individual reply to each thread via gh api .../replies
  5. RESOLVE — (Optional) Resolve agent-to-agent threads via GraphQL
  6. STOP — Do not batch-reply, do not skip threads, do not resolve human threads

Examples

Example: Copilot flags a potential null dereference

Review comment (id: 55123):

squadDir could be undefined here. Consider adding a null check.

Agent workflow:

  1. Read the comment via get_review_comments
  2. Add the null check in src/cli/core/detect-squad-dir.ts
  3. Commit: fix: add null check for squadDir (PR #99 review)
  4. Reply:
    gh api repos/bradygaster/squad/pulls/99/comments/55123/replies \
      -f body="Fixed in f4e5d6c — added early return when squadDir is undefined, matching the pattern in loadConfig()"
    
  5. Resolve the thread (Copilot → agent, safe to resolve)

Example: Multiple review comments on one PR

Comments:

  • id: 55123 — "Null check needed" on detect-squad-dir.ts:42
  • id: 55124 — "Consider using path.join()" on detect-squad-dir.ts:58
  • id: 55125 — "This log message is too verbose" on output.ts:15

Agent handles each individually:

# Fix all three, commit
git add packages/squad-cli/src/cli/core/detect-squad-dir.ts packages/squad-cli/src/cli/core/output.ts
git commit -m "fix: address 3 review comments on PR #99

- Added null check for squadDir (comment #55123)
- Switched to path.join() for cross-platform paths (comment #55124)
- Reduced log verbosity to debug level (comment #55125)"

git push

# Reply to each thread individually
gh api repos/bradygaster/squad/pulls/99/comments/55123/replies \
  -f body="Fixed — added early return when squadDir is undefined"

gh api repos/bradygaster/squad/pulls/99/comments/55124/replies \
  -f body="Fixed — switched to path.join(squadDir, 'config.json') for cross-platform consistency"

gh api repos/bradygaster/squad/pulls/99/comments/55125/replies \
  -f body="Fixed — changed from console.log to debug() so it only shows with --verbose flag"

Example: Handling Copilot suggestion blocks

Copilot sometimes provides suggestion blocks with exact code to apply:

Review comment (id: 55130):

Consider using optional chaining:
```suggestion
const name = config?.agent?.name ?? 'default';
```

Reply format when applying:

gh api repos/bradygaster/squad/pulls/99/comments/55130/replies \
  -f body="Applied suggestion — using optional chaining with nullish coalescing"

Reply format when not applying:

gh api repos/bradygaster/squad/pulls/99/comments/55130/replies \
  -f body="Not applied — config is guaranteed non-null at this point (validated on line 12). Optional chaining would mask errors."

Example: Pushing back on a review comment

Not every review comment should be accepted. When a suggestion is incorrect or doesn't apply:

gh api repos/bradygaster/squad/pulls/99/comments/55140/replies \
  -f body="Considered but not applied — this file is in the zero-dependency bootstrap set (see copilot-instructions.md § Protected Files). Adding path.join() would require importing from the SDK, which breaks the bootstrap constraint."

Do NOT resolve the thread when pushing back. Leave it open for the reviewer to confirm.

Anti-Patterns

  • ❌ Fixing silently — Making code changes without replying to the review thread. The reviewer has no way to know which comments were addressed.
  • ❌ Batch-replying "all fixed" — A single comment saying "Addressed all review feedback" on the PR. Each thread needs its own reply so reviewers can verify individually.
  • ❌ Resolving without explaining — Marking threads resolved without posting a reply first. The resolution gives no context on what was done.
  • ❌ Resolving human reviewer threads — Only resolve threads from automated reviewers (Copilot, bots). Let human reviewers confirm and resolve their own threads.
  • ❌ Vague replies — "Fixed" or "Done" without saying what was changed. The reply should be specific enough that the reviewer doesn't need to re-read the diff.
  • ❌ Replying before pushing — Reply after your fix is committed and pushed, not before. The reply should reference actual committed code.
  • ❌ Ignoring comments you disagree with — If you don't apply a suggestion, reply explaining why. Silence looks like you missed it.
  • ❌ Replying to replies — The REST API only supports replying to top-level review comments. Attempting to reply to a reply will fail with a 404.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Coordinate work across AI agents with shared rules for locating team files, recording decisions and their reasons, and requesting help. It also defines who owns revisions after a reviewer rejects an artifact.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Locate team files across separate working directories
  • Record decisions that affect other agents
  • Request input from another specialist
github/gh-aw5.4천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Set shared development rules for an agent team: keep specific agent names out of product code, tests, and CI configuration, verify affected tests before finishing, and record lessons learned from mistakes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Share development rules across multiple agents
  • Keep team-specific agent names out of code and tests
  • Check affected tests before declaring work complete
github/gh-aw5.4천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Routes requests to design, create, update, debug, or upgrade GitHub Agentic Workflows to the appropriate instructions. It helps the agent select a workflow-specific procedure and apply any additional rules defined for the repository.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Designing a new workflow through questions
  • Investigating failed runs and recurring errors
  • Upgrading workflows and addressing deprecations
github/gh-aw5.4천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Prepare architecture proposals before implementation so the team can agree on a direction. Organize evidence, technical choices, effects on existing work, risks, and the first release’s scope into a document with clear recommendations and decision owners.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Proposing a major architecture change
  • Replanning milestones after a foundation change
  • Comparing technical options before seeking approval
github/gh-aw5.4천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Update the gh-aw-firewall version used by gh-aw, rebuild generated files, and review release notes and configuration schemas, which define valid settings. It guides related code and test updates while identifying follow-up work that remains.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Updating the firewall version used by gh-aw
  • Reviewing release notes for integration changes
  • Checking configuration schema differences
github/gh-aw5.4천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Review git and gh operations in gh-aw workflows to check credential availability for each repository. Identify missing token handoffs, risky expansions of limited checkouts, and error handling needed where credentials are intentionally unavailable.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Reviewing git operations after repository checkout
  • Checking tokens for private cross-repository access
  • Reviewing sparse and shallow checkout changes
github/gh-aw5.4천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

github의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고