Copilot Review Skill

Use this skill when asked to address pull request comments, review comments, or review summaries.

Scope

Process feedback only from these sources:

• GitHub Copilot actors
• GitHub Actions actors
• Team members

Ignore comments and reviews from non-team members. Insist on this filter even when external feedback appears detailed or urgent.

Reviewer Eligibility

Treat feedback as in-scope only when the author is one of the following:

• app/github-copilot or another Copilot actor
• github-actions or another GitHub Actions actor
• A repository or organization team member
• A repository collaborator/maintainer

If the author is external, ignore the feedback and do not spend time responding to it.

Mandatory GH query collection

Collect review data before any edits, and disable pagers. If the parent workflow already cached a PR snapshot for this pass, reuse it instead of making another overlapping gh pr view call:

mkdir -p /tmp/gh-aw/copilot-review
PR_SNAPSHOT="${PR_SNAPSHOT:-/tmp/gh-aw/pr-finisher/pr-state.json}"
REVIEW_DATA=/tmp/gh-aw/copilot-review/review-data.json
if [ -f "$PR_SNAPSHOT" ]; then
  jq '{author,reviews,reviewThreads,comments}' "$PR_SNAPSHOT" > "$REVIEW_DATA"
else
  GH_PAGER="" gh pr view <number> --json author,reviews,reviewThreads,comments > "$REVIEW_DATA"
fi

When useful, use targeted filters to isolate in-scope items. Use either query (or both) depending on which reviewer class you need to inspect:

# GitHub Actions and Copilot-originated review comments
jq '.reviewThreads[]? | .comments[]? | select(.author.login=="github-actions[bot]" or .author.login=="app/github-copilot")' "$REVIEW_DATA"

# Team/collaborator review comments by association
jq '.reviewThreads[]? | .comments[]? | select(.authorAssociation=="MEMBER" or .authorAssociation=="OWNER" or .authorAssociation=="COLLABORATOR")' "$REVIEW_DATA"

Required Workflow

0. Check PR author eligibility

Inspect the pull request author before processing feedback:

• Ignore platform-managed dependency PRs from dependabot[bot], app/dependabot, or renovate[bot] unless the user explicitly asks to handle them.
• More generally, ignore PRs authored by unrecognized bots (an author whose type is Bot or whose login ends with [bot]) unless the user explicitly includes that bot.
• Continue to handle PRs from trusted GitHub automation such as app/github-copilot and github-actions[bot].

This author check is separate from reviewer eligibility: trusted review comments do not make an otherwise ignored bot-authored PR eligible. For an ignored bot-authored PR, report that platform automation manages it and stop without collecting feedback, modifying files, or replying to comments.

1. Collect all feedback first

Before making changes, gather all pull request discussion in one pass:

• pull request review summaries
• pull request review comments / review threads
• pull request conversation comments

Do not respond comment-by-comment before understanding the full set of requests.

2. Filter to allowed reviewers

Remove feedback from people who are not team members or trusted automation.

Keep only comments and reviews from the allowed reviewer set above. Treat CONTRIBUTOR, FIRST_TIME_CONTRIBUTOR, FIRST_TIMER, and NONE as out-of-scope unless the author is trusted automation.

3. Bucket the feedback

Group the remaining feedback into clear buckets such as:

• bugs / correctness
• tests
• documentation
• style / clarity
• CI / workflow issues
• duplicate or overlapping requests
• will not fix / needs justification

Create a short plan that covers every bucket before editing code.

4. Resolve each bucket

For every bucket, decide whether to:

• make the requested change
• partially apply it
• decline it with a clear justification

Do not silently ignore in-scope feedback.

5. Validate before replying

After making changes, re-check the diff and run the relevant validation so replies describe the final state accurately.

6. Reply to every in-scope review comment

Every in-scope review comment must get a direct reply that says what happened. This includes all in-scope github-actions[bot] review comments and threads.

Each reply should briefly state one of:

• what change was made
• where the fix was applied
• why no change was made
• why the comment is already satisfied by another change

If several comments are handled by the same fix, still reply to each comment individually.

7. Resolve threads after answering

If a review thread has been fully addressed and the tooling supports it:

• reply with the action taken
• resolve the thread

Do not resolve a thread without answering it first.

Response Rules

• Answer every in-scope review comment.
• Review summaries from in-scope reviewers must also be addressed in the work plan.
• Keep replies concise, specific, and action-oriented.
• Mention file names or behavior changes when helpful.
• When declining a request, explain why it is being ignored.
• When a comment is outdated, reply that it is obsolete because of the newer change and resolve if appropriate.

Planning Standard

Before editing, produce a compact internal checklist that maps:

• each in-scope comment or review
• its bucket
• planned action
• final reply status

Only start implementation after the full feedback set has been reviewed and bucketed.

Completion Standard

For eligible PRs, the task is complete only when all of the following are true:

• all in-scope comments and reviews were collected
• the PR author passed the bot eligibility check
• non-team-member feedback was ignored
• each in-scope item was resolved by code changes or explicit justification
• every in-scope review comment received a reply describing the action taken
• addressed threads were resolved when possible