跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开中文介绍

pr-address

收集PR审查意见,推进代码修改、提交、回复及讨论串解决,同时持续检查CI失败、合并冲突和新增评论,跟进直至审查事项处理完成。

原文查看原文说明

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.

集成工具GitHub

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 修改PR审查指出的问题
  • 回复人工和机器人审查
  • 调查并修复推送后的CI失败
  • 监控PR冲突和新增评论

中文介绍

功能

读取PR审查意见,从代码修改推进到回复及解决已处理的讨论串。逐页检查行内评论、审查正文和PR对话,收集尚未处理的意见。修改提交并推送后,会附上对应提交的链接回复。对于误报,会解释无需修改的理由。

适用场景

适合经过多轮审查,或同时收到人工和机器人意见的PR。也会检查CI自动检查失败和合并冲突,并结合新增评论反复推进处理,跟进到审查事项完成。

使用示例

  • “修改这个PR的审查问题,并回复审查者。”
  • “检查当前分支的PR,处理CI失败。”
  • “持续跟进这个PR,留意有没有新的审查意见。”

注意事项

使用GitHub CLI的gh和Git。流程包含推送修改、在GitHub发布回复以及解决讨论串。格式整理和测试以AutoGPT开发环境为前提。CI通过后还会继续检查,对已请求的机器人审查最多等待60分钟。提供的资料仅包含部分内容,此处介绍限于能够确认的范围。

本介绍由 AI(OpenAI Codex)根据公开的 SKILL.md 撰写。准确的规格请查看下方原文。

文档检查

AI 根据 SKILL.md 的内容检查了需要注意的操作和使用前提。评分只依据实际运行的结果(实测对比)。

安全性发送数据、删除文件、执行命令等是否有说明
C需确认可选步骤用gh pr comment发布/review,但没有发布前确认。
安装难易度所需工具和 API 密钥是否少且有说明
B部分不足使用gh、Git、jq和AutoGPT仓库,但没有安装或认证步骤。

不计入评分。 由 AI(OpenAI Codex)于 2026年10月23日 评估。仅供参考,安装前请同时查看原文。

如果您认为评估有误,请申请复核

请写明哪一项有误以及原因。无需登录。我们会对照 SKILL.md 重新评估,并在此处更新结果。

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md30.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

open-pr

免费有简介

检查代码变更的测试情况及对现有功能的影响,按仓库模板创建PR,并继续处理评审请求、反馈意见和CI检查。

  • 按指定模板创建PR
  • 检查现有功能与新功能的测试
  • 本地验证受限时请求机器人评审
Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT18.8万2026年10月23日 更新

orchestrate

免费有简介

在独立工作目录中运行多个Claude Code,统一分配开发任务、监控进度、协助恢复停止的会话,并检查PR测试及评审反馈的处理情况。

  • 向多个代理分配开发任务
  • 查看进度及空闲worktree
  • 恢复停止工作的代理
Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT18.8万2026年10月23日 更新

perf-compare

免费有简介

利用Sentry测量数据比较变更前后或不同环境的速度与失败率,考虑统计波动,判定加速、减速、未检测到变化或数据不足,并输出比较结果。

  • 比较发布前后的性能
  • 验证预览环境与对照环境
  • 检查其他操作是否变慢
Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT18.8万2026年10月23日 更新

pr-polish

免费有简介

反复审查和修复PR,检查未解决的讨论、评论回复、自动检查及合并冲突,并等待延迟到达的评论,将PR整理到可以合并的状态。

  • 将PR整理到可合并状态
  • 反复修复直到没有新问题
  • 处理延迟到达的机器人审查
Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT18.8万2026年10月23日 更新

pr-review

免费有简介

审查拉取请求的目的和代码差异,检查正确性、安全性、设计及测试,避免重复已有评论,并将标注严重程度的问题发布到对应代码行。

  • 合并前审查拉取请求
  • 检查代码变更的安全性
  • 查找边界情况的测试缺口
Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT18.8万2026年10月23日 更新

pr-test

免费有简介

在运行中的系统上通过浏览器和API验证PR或分支变更,对照界面、接口及存储数据的变化,并附上操作前后截图报告结果。

  • 通过浏览器和API完整测试PR
  • 对照界面、API及存储数据的变化
  • 验证无效输入等异常情况
Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT18.8万2026年10月23日 更新

查看 Significant-Gravitas 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题