本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開日本語紹介

pr-address

PRのレビュー指摘を集め、コード修正・コミット・返信・解決処理を進めながら、CIの失敗や競合、新たなコメントも継続して確認し、対応完了まで追うスキル。

原文原文の説明を見る

Address PR review comments and loop until CI green and all comments resolved. TRIGGER when user asks to address comments, fix PR feedback, respond to reviewers, or babysit/monitor a PR.

連携ツールGitHub

実行スコア 未検証

インストール方法を見る

こんなときに便利

  • PRのレビュー指摘を修正したいとき
  • 人やボットのレビューへの返信
  • push後のCI失敗の調査と修正
  • PRの競合や追加コメントの監視

日本語での紹介

できること

PRのレビュー指摘を読み、修正から返信、対応済みスレッドの解決まで進めます。行単位のコメント、レビュー本文、PRの会話を全ページ確認し、未対応の指摘を集めます。修正をコミットしてpushした後、対応コミットへのリンクを添えて返信します。誤検知の場合は、修正不要と判断した理由を説明します。

こんなときに便利

レビューが何度も往復しているPRや、人とボットの指摘が混在するPRの対応に向いています。CIという自動チェックの失敗やマージ競合も確認し、新しいコメントへの対応と合わせて繰り返し進めます。

使い方の例

  • 「このPRのレビュー指摘を修正して、返信まで進めて」
  • 「現在のブランチのPRを確認し、CIの失敗に対応して」
  • 「新しい指摘が来ていないか見ながらPRを追って」

注意点

GitHub CLIのghとGitを使います。修正内容をpushし、GitHub上で返信やスレッドの解決を行う手順を含みます。整形やテストはAutoGPTの開発環境を前提としています。CI通過後も追加確認を行い、依頼済みのボットレビューは最大60分待ちます。資料は途中までのため、ここでは確認できた範囲を紹介しています。

この紹介文は、公開されている SKILL.md をもとに AI(OpenAI Codex)が作成しました。正確な仕様は下の原文を確認してください。

資料チェック

SKILL.md の記述から、注意が要る操作と導入の前提を AI が確認しました。点数は実際に動かした結果(実行検証)だけで付けています。

安全面送信・削除・コマンド実行などの扱いが明示されているか
C要確認任意の手順としてgh pr commentで/reviewを投稿しますが、投稿前の確認はありません。
導入のしやすさ必要なツールや API キーが少ないか、書かれているか
B一部不足gh・Git・jqとAutoGPTのリポジトリを使いますが、導入や認証の手順はありません。

点数には入れていません。 2026年10月23日 時点で AI(OpenAI Codex)が判定しました。目安なので、入れる前に原文も確認してください。

評価が違うと思ったら、見直しを依頼する

どの項目が、なぜ違うと思うかを書いてください。ログインは不要です。内容を SKILL.md と照らし合わせて評価を作り直し、この欄に反映します。

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md30.3 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 Address

Find the PR

gh pr list --head $(git branch --show-current) --repo Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT
gh pr view {N}

Read the PR description

Understand the Why / What / How before addressing comments — you need context to make good fixes:

gh pr view {N} --json body --jq '.body'

If GraphQL is rate-limited, gh pr view fails. See GitHub rate limits for REST fallbacks.

Optional: trigger the review bot

Only relevant if the PR has no review yet. If the fetch steps below turn up no reviews and no inline threads, there is nothing to address yet — that is not the same as being done. You can summon the repo's review bot yourself:

gh pr comment {N} --body "/review"

This is an option, not a required step. Skip it whenever the PR already has reviews (bot or human) — those are what you are here to address. See the open-pr skill's "Review workflow" step for the same trigger in the PR-creation flow.

autogpt-pr-reviewer[bot] typically responds within ~30 minutes. Poll for it rather than sleeping — the loop in Polling for CI + new comments already re-checks every source every 30 seconds, so run that loop and react the moment the review lands. Note the id and created_at of the /review comment you posted; Waiting on a requested review needs them for the exit condition.

Fetch comments (all sources)

1. Inline review threads — GraphQL (primary source of actionable items)

⚠️ WARNING — PAGINATE ALL PAGES BEFORE ADDRESSING ANYTHING

reviewThreads(first: 100) returns at most 100 threads per page AND returns threads oldest-first. On a PR with many review cycles (e.g. 373 threads), the oldest 100–200 threads are from past cycles and are all already resolved. Filtering client-side with select(.isResolved == false) on page 1 therefore yields 0 results — even though pages 2–4 contain many unresolved threads from recent review cycles.

This is the most common failure mode: agent fetches page 1, sees 0 unresolved after filtering, stops pagination, reports "done" — while hundreds of unresolved threads sit on later pages.

One observed PR had 142 total threads: page 1 returned 0 unresolved (all old/resolved), while pages 2–3 had 111 unresolved. Another with 373 threads across 4 pages also had page 1 entirely resolved.

The rule: ALWAYS paginate to hasNextPage == false regardless of the per-page unresolved count. Never stop early because a page returns 0 unresolved.

Step 1 — Fetch total count and sanity-check the newest threads:

# Get total count and the newest 100 threads (last: 100 returns newest-first)
gh api graphql -f query='
{
  repository(owner: "Significant-Gravitas", name: "AutoGPT") {
    pullRequest(number: {N}) {
      reviewThreads { totalCount }
      newest: reviewThreads(last: 100) {
        nodes { isResolved }
      }
    }
  }
}' | jq '{ total: .data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.totalCount, newest_unresolved: [.data.repository.pullRequest.newest.nodes[] | select(.isResolved == false)] | length }'

If total > 100, you have multiple pages — you must paginate all of them regardless of what newest_unresolved shows. The last: 100 check is a sanity signal only; the full loop below is mandatory.

Step 2 — Collect all unresolved thread IDs across all pages:

# Accumulate all unresolved threads — loop until hasNextPage == false
CURSOR=""
ALL_THREADS="[]"
while true; do
  AFTER=${CURSOR:+", after: \"$CURSOR\""}
  PAGE=$(gh api graphql -f query="
  {
    repository(owner: \"Significant-Gravitas\", name: \"AutoGPT\") {
      pullRequest(number: {N}) {
        reviewThreads(first: 100${AFTER}) {
          pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor }
          nodes {
            id
            isResolved
            path
            line
            comments(last: 1) {
              nodes { databaseId body author { login } }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }")
  # Append unresolved nodes from this page
  PAGE_THREADS=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq '[.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes[] | select(.isResolved == false)]')
  ALL_THREADS=$(echo "$ALL_THREADS $PAGE_THREADS" | jq -s 'add')
  HAS_NEXT=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.pageInfo.hasNextPage')
  CURSOR=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.pageInfo.endCursor')
  [ "$HAS_NEXT" = "false" ] && break
done

# Reverse so newest threads (last pages) are addressed first — GitHub returns oldest-first
# and the most recent review cycle's comments are the ones blocking approval.
ALL_THREADS=$(echo "$ALL_THREADS" | jq 'reverse')

echo "Total unresolved threads: $(echo "$ALL_THREADS" | jq 'length')"
echo "$ALL_THREADS" | jq '[.[] | {id, path, line, body: .comments.nodes[0].body[:200]}]'

Step 3 — Address every thread in ALL_THREADS, then resolve.

Only after this loop completes (all pages fetched, count confirmed) should you begin making fixes.

Why reverse? GraphQL returns threads oldest-first and exposes no orderBy option. A PR with 373 threads has ~4 pages; threads from the latest review cycle land on the last pages. Processing in reverse ensures the newest, most blocking comments are addressed first — the earlier pages mostly contain outdated threads from prior cycles.

Filter to unresolved threads only — skip any thread where isResolved: true. comments(last: 1) returns the most recent comment in the thread — act on that; it reflects the reviewer's final ask. Use the thread id (Relay global ID) to track threads across polls.

If GraphQL is rate-limited, see GitHub rate limits for the REST fallback (flat comment list — no thread grouping or isResolved).

2. Top-level reviews — REST (MUST paginate)

gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N}/reviews --paginate

Already REST — unaffected by GraphQL rate limits or outages. Continue polling reviews normally even when GraphQL is exhausted.

CRITICAL — always --paginate. Reviews default to 30 per page. PRs can have 80–170+ reviews (mostly empty resolution events). Without pagination you miss reviews past position 30 — including autogpt-pr-reviewer[bot]'s structured review which is typically posted after several CI runs and sits well beyond the first page.

Two things to extract:

  • Overall state: look for CHANGES_REQUESTED or APPROVED reviews.
  • Actionable feedback: non-empty bodies only. Empty-body reviews are thread-resolution events — they indicate progress but have no feedback to act on.

Where each reviewer posts:

  • autogpt-pr-reviewer[bot] — posts detailed structured reviews ("Blockers", "Should Fix", "Nice to Have") as top-level reviews. Not present on every PR. Address ALL items.
  • sentry[bot] — posts bug predictions as inline threads. Fix real bugs, explain false positives.
  • coderabbitai[bot] — posts summaries as top-level reviews AND actionable items as inline threads. Address actionable items.
  • Human reviewers — can post in any source. Address ALL non-empty feedback.

3. PR conversation comments — REST

gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/issues/{N}/comments --paginate

Already REST — unaffected by GraphQL rate limits.

Mostly contains: bot summaries (coderabbitai[bot]), CI/conflict detection (github-actions[bot]), and author status updates. Scan for non-empty messages from non-bot human reviewers that aren't the PR author — those are the ones that need a response.

Slash-command trigger comments are never actionable items — skip them. A comment whose entire body is a slash command (/review being the common one) exists to summon the review bot; it is not a request directed at you. Do not reply to it, do not treat it as feedback, and do not count it as a "new comment" that restarts the loop. The non-author filter above happens to hide the usual case where the PR author posted it, but that is incidental — a maintainer can post /review on someone else's PR, and it must still be skipped. The actionable content is the review it produces, which arrives as a top-level review and/or inline threads, not as a conversation comment.

For each unaddressed comment

CRITICAL: The only valid sequence is fix → commit → push → reply → resolve. Never resolve a thread without a real code commit.

Resolving a thread via resolveReviewThread without an actual fix is the most common failure mode — it makes unresolved counts drop without any real change, producing a false "done" signal. If the issue was genuinely a false positive (no code change needed), reply explaining why and then resolve. Otherwise:

Address comments one at a time: fix → commit → push → inline reply → resolve.

  1. Read the referenced code, make the fix (or reply explaining why it's not needed)
  2. Commit and push the fix
  3. Reply inline (not as a new top-level comment) referencing the fixing commit — this is what resolves the conversation for bot reviewers (coderabbitai, sentry):

Use a markdown commit link so GitHub renders it as a clickable reference. Always get the full SHA with git rev-parse HEAD after committing — never copy a SHA from a previous commit or hardcode one:

FULL_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N}/comments/{ID}/replies \
  -f body="🤖 Fixed in [${FULL_SHA:0:9}](https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/commit/${FULL_SHA}): <description>"
Comment typeHow to reply
Inline review (pulls/{N}/comments)gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N}/comments/{ID}/replies -f body="🤖 Fixed in [abc1234](https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/commit/FULL_SHA): <description>"
Conversation (issues/{N}/comments)gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/issues/{N}/comments -f body="🤖 Fixed in [abc1234](https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/commit/FULL_SHA): <description>"

What counts as a valid resolution

Only two situations justify calling resolveReviewThread:

  1. Real code fix: you changed the code, committed + pushed, and replied with the SHA. The commit diff must actually address the concern — not just touch the same file.
  2. Genuine false positive: the reviewer's concern does not apply to this code, and you can give a specific technical reason (e.g. "Not applicable — sdk_cwd is pre-validated by _make_sdk_cwd() which applies normpath + prefix assertion before reaching this point").

Anti-patterns that look resolved but aren't — never do these:

  • "Accepted, tracked as follow-up" — a deferral, not a fix. The concern is still open. Do not resolve.
  • "Acknowledged" or "Same as above" — these are acknowledgements, not fixes. Do not resolve.
  • "Fixed in abc1234" where abc1234 is a commit that doesn't actually change the flagged line/logic — dishonest. Verify git show abc1234 -- path/to/file changes the right thing before posting.
  • Resolving without replying — the reviewer never sees what happened.

When in doubt: if a code change is needed, make it. A deferred issue means the thread stays open until the follow-up PR is merged.

Codecov coverage

Codecov patch target is 80% on changed lines. Checks are informational (not blocking) but should be green.

Running coverage locally

Backend (from autogpt_platform/backend/):

poetry run pytest -s -vv --cov=backend --cov-branch --cov-report term-missing

Frontend (from autogpt_platform/frontend/):

pnpm vitest run --coverage

When codecov/patch fails

  1. Find uncovered files: git diff --name-only $(gh pr view --json baseRefName --jq '.baseRefName')...HEAD
  2. For each uncovered file — extract inline logic to helpers.ts/helpers.py and test those (highest ROI). Colocate tests as *_test.py (backend) or __tests__/*.test.ts (frontend).
  3. Run coverage locally to verify, commit, push.

Format and commit

After fixing, format the changed code:

  • Backend (from autogpt_platform/backend/): poetry run format
  • Frontend (from autogpt_platform/frontend/): pnpm format && pnpm lint && pnpm types

If API routes changed, regenerate the frontend client:

cd autogpt_platform/backend && poetry run rest &
REST_PID=$!
trap "kill $REST_PID 2>/dev/null" EXIT
WAIT=0; until curl -sf http://localhost:8006/health > /dev/null 2>&1; do sleep 1; WAIT=$((WAIT+1)); [ $WAIT -ge 60 ] && echo "Timed out" && exit 1; done
cd ../frontend && pnpm generate:api:force
kill $REST_PID 2>/dev/null; trap - EXIT

Never manually edit files in src/app/api/__generated__/.

Then commit and push immediately — never batch commits without pushing. Each fix should be visible on GitHub right away so CI can start and reviewers can see progress.

Never push empty commits (git commit --allow-empty) to re-trigger CI or bot checks. When a check fails, investigate the root cause (unchecked PR checklist, unaddressed review comments, code issues) and fix those directly. Empty commits add noise to git history.

For backend commits in worktrees: poetry run git commit (pre-commit hooks).

Coverage

Codecov enforces patch coverage on new/changed lines — new code you write must be tested. Before pushing, verify you haven't left new lines uncovered:

cd autogpt_platform/backend
poetry run pytest --cov=. --cov-report=term-missing {path/to/changed/module}

Look for lines marked miss — those are uncovered. Add tests for any new code you wrote as part of addressing comments.

Rules:

  • New code you add should have tests
  • Don't remove existing tests when fixing comments
  • If a reviewer asks you to delete code, also delete its tests, but verify coverage hasn't dropped on remaining lines

The loop

address comments → format → commit → push
→ wait for CI (while addressing new comments) → fix failures → push
→ re-check comments after CI settles
→ repeat until: all comments addressed AND CI green AND no new comments arriving

Polling for CI + new comments

After pushing, poll for both CI status and new comments in a single loop. Do not use gh pr checks --watch — it blocks the tool and prevents reacting to new comments while CI is running.

Note: gh pr checks --watch --fail-fast is tempting but it blocks the entire Bash tool call, meaning the agent cannot check for or address new comments until CI fully completes. Always poll manually instead.

Polling loop — repeat every 30 seconds:

  1. Check CI status:
gh pr checks {N} --repo Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT --json bucket,name,link

Parse the results: if every check has bucket of "pass" or "skipping", CI is green. If any has "fail", CI has failed. Otherwise CI is still pending.

  1. Check for merge conflicts:
gh pr view {N} --repo Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT --json mergeable --jq '.mergeable'

If the result is "CONFLICTING", the PR has a merge conflict — see "Resolving merge conflicts" below. If "UNKNOWN", GitHub is still computing mergeability — wait and re-check next poll.

  1. Check for new/changed comments (all three sources):

    Inline threads — re-run the GraphQL query from "Fetch comments". For each unresolved thread, record {thread_id, last_comment_databaseId} as your baseline. On each poll, action is needed if:

    • A new thread id appears that wasn't in the baseline (new thread), OR
    • An existing thread's last_comment_databaseId has changed (new reply on existing thread)

    Conversation comments:

    # Exclude slash-command triggers here, not just when reading — otherwise a
    # `/review` (yours or a maintainer's) counts as a "new comment" and forces
    # an address round over a comment with nothing to address.
    gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/issues/{N}/comments --paginate --slurp \
      | jq '[.[][] | select((.body // "") | test("^\\s*/[a-z-]+\\s*$") | not)]'
    

    Compare total count and newest id against baseline. Filter to non-empty, non-bot, non-author-update messages.

    Top-level reviews:

    gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N}/reviews --paginate
    

    Watch for new non-empty reviews (CHANGES_REQUESTED or COMMENTED with body). Compare total count and newest id against baseline.

  2. React in this precedence order (first match wins):

What happenedAction
Merge conflict detectedSee "Resolving merge conflicts" below.
Mergeability is UNKNOWNGitHub is still computing mergeability. Sleep 30 seconds, then restart polling from the top.
New comments detectedAddress them (fix → commit → push → reply). After pushing, re-fetch all comments to update your baseline, then restart this polling loop from the top (new commits invalidate CI status).
CI failed (bucket == "fail")Get failed check links: gh pr checks {N} --repo Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT --json bucket,link --jq '.[] | select(.bucket == "fail") | .link'. Extract run ID from link (format: .../actions/runs/<run-id>/job/...), read logs with gh run view <run-id> --repo Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT --log-failed. Fix → commit → push → restart polling.
CI green + no new comments, but a requested /review is unansweredThe bot is still working — quiet polls are exactly what that looks like. Keep polling; do not count these as the quiet polls below. See "Waiting on a requested review".
CI green + no new commentsDo not exit immediately. Bots (coderabbitai, sentry) often post reviews shortly after CI settles. Continue polling for 2 more cycles (60s) after CI goes green. Only exit after 2 consecutive green+quiet polls.
CI pending + no new commentsSleep 30 seconds, then poll again.

The loop ends when: CI fully green + all comments addressed + 2 consecutive polls with no new comments after CI settled + no requested-but-unanswered /review (see below).

Waiting on a requested review

If a /review comment was posted on this PR and the bot has not answered it yet, the "2 consecutive green+quiet polls" exit is premature — a pending bot review looks identical to a quiet PR. Keep polling until one of these is true:

  • The review arrived. An answer is either a top-level review or an inline review comment from autogpt-pr-reviewer[bot], whichever is later — an inline-only reply is still an answer, and counting only top-level reviews leaves the gate waiting after its threads have already been addressed. Once it lands, treat it as "New comments detected" and address it normally.
  • The budget ran out. Stop waiting 60 minutes after the /review comment's created_at. Then exit per the normal rule and tell the user the requested review never arrived. Never hang indefinitely on a bot.

Recompute both timestamps from the API on every poll rather than tracking elapsed time in a loop variable — a counter that some branch forgets to increment is how this gate becomes an infinite wait.

# `--slurp` cannot be combined with `--jq`; pipe to standalone jq instead.
REQUESTED_AT=$(gh api "repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/issues/{N}/comments" --paginate --slurp \
  | jq -r '[.[][] | select((.body // "") | test("^\\s*/review\\s*$"))] | max_by(.created_at) | .created_at // empty')
REVIEWED_AT=$(gh api "repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N}/reviews" --paginate --slurp \
  | jq -r '[.[][] | select(.user.login == "autogpt-pr-reviewer[bot]")] | max_by(.submitted_at) | .submitted_at // empty')
COMMENTED_AT=$(gh api "repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N}/comments" --paginate --slurp \
  | jq -r '[.[][] | select(.user.login == "autogpt-pr-reviewer[bot]")] | max_by(.created_at) | .created_at // empty')
ANSWERED_AT=$(printf '%s\n%s\n' "$REVIEWED_AT" "$COMMENTED_AT" | grep -v '^$' | sort | tail -1)

# Pending iff a request exists and no answer is strictly newer than it.
# Start every poll from `false`: a stale `true` from the previous poll would
# otherwise keep the gate waiting after the answer has already landed.
# `[ a \< b ]` is not portable (fails under zsh), so compare via sort.
pending=false
NEWEST=$(printf '%s\n%s\n' "$REQUESTED_AT" "$ANSWERED_AT" | grep -v '^$' | sort | tail -1)
if [ -n "$REQUESTED_AT" ] && { [ -z "$ANSWERED_AT" ] || [ "$NEWEST" = "$REQUESTED_AT" ]; }; then
  pending=true
fi

A /review posted before this session still counts. Budget is 60 minutes from REQUESTED_AT: an observed reply on this repo took 46 minutes, so 45 would have abandoned a review that was about to land. Enforce it in the same poll so the loop cannot wait forever:

# Only meaningful when a request exists: GNU date reads an empty string as
# "now", BSD date errors, and either way there is nothing to time out.
if [ -n "$REQUESTED_AT" ]; then
  WAITED=$(( $(date +%s) - $(date -u -j -f "%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ" "$REQUESTED_AT" +%s 2>/dev/null || date -u -d "$REQUESTED_AT" +%s) ))
  [ "$WAITED" -ge 3600 ] && pending=false   # budget spent — stop waiting
fi

Do not post another /review while one is unanswered — check this same condition before triggering, or each round queues a duplicate request.

Resolving merge conflicts

  1. Identify the PR's target branch and remote:
gh pr view {N} --repo Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT --json baseRefName --jq '.baseRefName'
git remote -v   # find the remote pointing to Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT (typically 'upstream' in forks, 'origin' for direct contributors)
  1. Pull the latest base branch with a 3-way merge:
git pull {base-remote} {base-branch} --no-rebase
  1. Resolve conflicting files, then verify no conflict markers remain:
if grep -R -n -E '^(<<<<<<<|=======|>>>>>>>)' <conflicted-files>; then
  echo "Unresolved conflict markers found — resolve before proceeding."
  exit 1
fi
  1. Stage and push:
git add <conflicted-files>
git commit -m "Resolve merge conflicts with {base-branch}"
git push
  1. Restart the polling loop from the top — new commits reset CI status.

GitHub rate limits

Three distinct rate limits exist — they have different causes, error shapes, and recovery times:

ErrorHTTP codeCauseRecovery
{"code":"abuse"}403Secondary rate limit — too many write operations (comments, mutations) in a short windowWait 2–3 minutes. 60s is often not enough.
{"message":"API rate limit exceeded"}429Primary REST rate limit — 5000 calls/hr per userWait until X-RateLimit-Reset header timestamp
GraphQL: API rate limit already exceeded for user ID ...403 on stderr, gh exits 1GraphQL-specific per-user limit — distinct from REST's 5000/hr and from the abuse secondary limit. Trips faster than REST because point costs per query.Wait until the GraphQL window resets (typically ~1 hour from the first call in the window). REST still works — use fallbacks below.

Prevention: Add sleep 3 between individual thread reply API calls. When posting >20 replies, increase to sleep 5.

Detection

The gh CLI surfaces the GraphQL limit on stderr with the exact string GraphQL: API rate limit already exceeded for user ID <id> and exits 1 — any gh api graphql ... or gh pr view ... call fails. Check current quota and reset time via the REST endpoint that reports GraphQL quota (this call is REST and still works whether GraphQL is rate-limited OR fully down):

gh api rate_limit --jq '.resources.graphql'   # { "limit": 5000, "used": 5000, "remaining": 0, "reset": 1729...}
# Human-readable reset:
gh api rate_limit --jq '.resources.graphql.reset' | xargs -I{} date -r {}

Retry when remaining > 0. If you need to proceed sooner, sleep 2–5 min and probe again — the limit is per user, not per machine, so other concurrent agents under the same token also consume it.

What keeps working

When GraphQL is unavailable (rate-limited or outage):

  • Keeps working (REST): top-level reviews fetch, conversation comments fetch, all inline-comment replies, CI status (gh pr checks), and the gh api rate_limit probe.
  • Degraded: inline thread list — fall back to flat /pulls/{N}/comments REST, which drops thread grouping, isResolved, and Relay thread IDs. You still get comment bodies and the databaseId as id, enough to read and reply.
  • Blocked: gh pr view, the resolveReviewThread mutation, and any new gh api graphql queries — wait for the quota to reset.

Fall back to REST

PR metadata reads — gh pr view uses GraphQL under the hood; use the REST pulls endpoint instead, which returns the full PR object:

gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N} --jq '.body'           # == --json body
gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N} --jq '.base.ref'       # == --json baseRefName
gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N} --jq '.mergeable'      # == --json mergeable

Note: REST mergeable returns true|false|null; GraphQL returns MERGEABLE|CONFLICTING|UNKNOWN. The null case maps to UNKNOWN — treat it the same (still computing; poll again).

Inline comments (flat list) — no thread grouping or isResolved, but enough to read and reply:

gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N}/comments --paginate \
  | jq '[.[] | {id, path, line, user: .user.login, body: .body[:200], in_reply_to_id}]'

Use this degraded mode to make progress on the fix → reply loop, then return to GraphQL for resolveReviewThread once the rate limit resets.

Replies — already REST-native (/pulls/{N}/comments/{ID}/replies); no change needed, use the same command as the main flow.

resolveReviewThread — no REST equivalent; GitHub does not expose a REST endpoint for thread resolution. Queue the thread IDs needing resolution, wait for the GraphQL limit to reset, then run the resolve mutations in a batch (with sleep 3 between calls, per the secondary-limit guidance).

Recovery from secondary rate limit (403 abuse)

  1. Stop all API writes immediately
  2. Wait 2 minutes minimum (not 60s — secondary limits are stricter)
  3. Resume with sleep 3 between each call
  4. If 403 persists after 2 min, wait another 2 min before retrying

Never batch all replies in a tight loop — always space them out.

Parallel thread resolution

When a PR has more than 10 unresolved threads, addressing one commit per thread is slow. Use this strategy instead:

Group by file, batch per commit

  1. Sort ALL_THREADS by path — threads in the same file can share a single commit.
  2. Fix all threads in one file → git commit → git push → reply to all those threads with the same SHA → resolve them all.
  3. Move to the next file group and repeat.

This reduces N commits to (number of files touched), which is usually 3–5 instead of 15–30.

Posting replies concurrently (for large batches)

For truly independent thread groups (different files, no shared logic), you can post replies in parallel using background subshells — but always space out API writes:

# Post replies to a batch of threads concurrently, 3s apart
(
  sleep 3
  gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N}/comments/{ID1}/replies \
    -f body="🤖 Fixed in [${FULL_SHA:0:9}](https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/commit/${FULL_SHA}): ..."
) &
(
  sleep 6
  gh api repos/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/pulls/{N}/comments/{ID2}/replies \
    -f body="🤖 Fixed in [${FULL_SHA:0:9}](https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT/commit/${FULL_SHA}): ..."
) &
wait  # wait for all background replies before resolving

Then resolve sequentially (GraphQL mutations):

for THREAD_ID in "$THREAD1" "$THREAD2" "$THREAD3"; do
  gh api graphql -f query="mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: \"${THREAD_ID}\"}) { thread { isResolved } } }"
  sleep 3
done

Always sleep 3s between individual API writes — GitHub's secondary rate limit (403) triggers on bursts of >20 writes. Increase to sleep 5 when posting more than 20 replies in a batch.

Resolving threads via GraphQL

Use resolveReviewThread only after the commit is pushed and the reply is posted:

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

Never call this mutation before committing the fix. The orchestrator will verify actual unresolved counts via GraphQL after you output ORCHESTRATOR:DONE — false resolutions will be caught and you will be re-briefed.

resolveReviewThread is GraphQL-only — no REST equivalent. If GraphQL is rate-limited, see GitHub rate limits for the queue-and-retry flow.

Verify actual count before outputting ORCHESTRATOR:DONE

Before claiming "0 unresolved threads", always query GitHub directly — don't rely on your own bookkeeping. Paginate all pages — a single first: 100 query misses threads beyond page 1:

# Step 1: get total thread count
gh api graphql -f query='
{
  repository(owner: "Significant-Gravitas", name: "AutoGPT") {
    pullRequest(number: {N}) {
      reviewThreads { totalCount }
    }
  }
}' | jq '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.totalCount'

# Step 2: paginate all pages, count truly unresolved
CURSOR=""; UNRESOLVED=0
while true; do
  AFTER=${CURSOR:+", after: \"$CURSOR\""}
  PAGE=$(gh api graphql -f query="
  {
    repository(owner: \"Significant-Gravitas\", name: \"AutoGPT\") {
      pullRequest(number: {N}) {
        reviewThreads(first: 100${AFTER}) {
          pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor }
          nodes { isResolved }
        }
      }
    }
  }")
  UNRESOLVED=$(( UNRESOLVED + $(echo "$PAGE" | jq '[.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes[] | select(.isResolved==false)] | length') ))
  HAS_NEXT=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.pageInfo.hasNextPage')
  CURSOR=$(echo "$PAGE" | jq -r '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.pageInfo.endCursor')
  [ "$HAS_NEXT" = "false" ] && break
done
echo "Unresolved threads: $UNRESOLVED"

Only output ORCHESTRATOR:DONE after this loop reports 0.

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。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

open-pr

無料概要あり

コード変更のテストと既存機能への影響を確認し、リポジトリ所定のテンプレートでPRを作成して、レビュー依頼から指摘への対応まで進めるスキル。

  • 所定のテンプレートでPRを作りたいとき
  • 既存動作と新機能のテストを確認する
  • ローカル検証が難しくbotに依頼する
Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT18.8万2026年10月24日 更新

orchestrate

無料概要あり

複数のClaude Codeを別々の作業フォルダで動かし、タスクの割り当て、進捗監視、停止時の再開支援、PRの完了確認をまとめて管理するスキル。

  • 複数エージェントへ開発を分担したいとき
  • 進捗と空きworktreeを確認したいとき
  • 停止したエージェントを再開したいとき
Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT18.8万2026年10月24日 更新

perf-compare

無料概要あり

Sentryの計測データで変更前後や環境間の速度と失敗率を比較し、統計的なばらつきを考慮して高速化・低速化・変化を検出できず・データ不足を判定するスキル。

  • リリース前後の性能比較
  • プレビュー環境と比較用環境の検証
  • ほかの処理の性能劣化を確認したいとき
Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT18.8万2026年10月24日 更新

pr-polish

無料概要あり

PRのレビューと修正対応を繰り返し、未解決の指摘やCIの失敗、競合を確認します。遅れて届くコメントも待ち受け、マージできる状態まで仕上げるスキル。

  • PRをマージ可能な状態に整えたいとき
  • 新しい指摘がなくなるまで修正したいとき
  • 遅れて届くボットレビューへの対応
Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT18.8万2026年10月24日 更新

pr-review

無料概要あり

プルリクエストの目的と差分を読み、正しさ・安全性・設計・テストを点検します。既存コメントとの重複を避け、重要度付きの指摘を該当行に投稿するスキル。

  • マージ前にPRを点検したいとき
  • 変更内容の安全性を確認したいとき
  • 境界条件のテスト不足を探したいとき
Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT18.8万2026年10月24日 更新

pr-test

無料概要あり

PRやブランチの変更を起動中のシステムで操作し、画面・API・保存データの変化を照合して、前後のスクリーンショット付きで検証結果を報告するスキル。

  • PRを画面とAPIから通して試したいとき
  • 画面・API・保存データの変化を照合する
  • 不正入力などの異常系を検証したいとき
Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT18.8万2026年10月24日 更新

Significant-Gravitas のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する