Address PR review comments and resolve threads. Use when CHANGES_REQUESTED is set, working through unresolved review threads, or replying to reviewer feedback.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
Address PR review comments and resolve threads. Use when CHANGES_REQUESTED is set, working through unresolved review threads, or replying to reviewer feedback.
name
git-pr-feedback
agent
general-purpose
Context
Repo: !git remote -v
Current branch: !git branch --show-current
Git status: !git status --porcelain=v2 --branch
Parameters
Parse these parameters from the command (all optional):
Parameter
Description
$1
PR number (if omitted, use PR of current branch; if no such PR, list actionable PRs). Mutually exclusive with --all.
--commit
Create commit(s) after addressing feedback.
--push
Push changes after committing (implies --commit).
--all
Address feedback on every actionable open PR. Dispatches one subagent per PR in an isolated worktree; the orchestrator pushes, replies, and resolves. Implies --commit --push unless --dry-run is set. Mutually exclusive with $1.
--dry-run
With --all, print the dispatch plan and stop โ no subagents spawned, no commits, no pushes. Ignored without --all.
--limit N
Maximum concurrent subagents under --all (default 3). Use a small number to stay under GitHub rate limits and avoid [1m]-model concurrency cascades (see skill-fork-context.md).
--include-automation
With --all, also surface automation-authored PRs (release-please, dependabot, renovate, *[bot], *-bot). Excluded by default because they carry no human review feedback and their CI failures are resolved by automation re-running, not hand edits.
Mode selection:
Mode
Triggered when
Flow
Single-PR
No --all
Steps 1โ7 below operate on one PR.
Multi-PR
--all is passed
Step 1A dispatches subagents; the orchestrator finalises (push, reply, resolve, re-request) and writes a combined summary. Skip Steps 1โ6.
If both $1 and --all are given, error and stop with: --all is mutually exclusive with a PR number argument.
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when...
Use another skill instead when...
A PR has reviewer comments to address
CI checks are failing with no review comments -> use git-fix-pr
You need to systematically work through review feedback
You're creating a new PR -> use git-commit-push-pr
A reviewer has requested changes
You want to understand PR workflow patterns -> use git-branch-pr-workflow
Your Task
Review PR workflow results and reviewer comments, then address substantive feedback.
For feedback categorization, decision trees, commit format, and report templates, see REFERENCE.md.
Step 1: Determine PR and Gather All Data
If --all is set, skip this step and jump to Step 1A: Multi-PR Mode below.
Parse owner/repo from the git remote URL.
Resolve the PR number in this order:
If $1 was provided, use it.
Otherwise, try the PR for the current branch:
gh pr view --json number -q '.number'
If step 2 fails (no PR for the branch) or the command is on a detached/default branch, fall back to listing actionable PRs:
The script emits a JSON array of open, non-draft PRs that have unresolved review threads, failing/errored CI, or CHANGES_REQUESTED. Handle the result as follows:
Result
Action
Empty array
Report "No PRs need attention." and stop.
One entry
Use that PR number and continue.
Multiple entries
Print a compact table (number, author, CI, unresolved, reviewDecision, title) ordered as returned, then stop and instruct the user to re-run /git:pr-feedback <number>. Do not guess which PR they meant.
If the GraphQL query fails with a rate limit error, wait 60 seconds and retry once.
Step 1A: Multi-PR Mode (--all)
Reached only when --all is passed. The orchestrator dispatches one subagent per actionable PR; subagents commit inside isolated worktrees but never push. The orchestrator handles all GitHub-side mutations.
Parse owner/repo from the git remote URL.
List actionable PRs with the bundled selector (append --include-automation if that flag was passed):
The script returns a JSON array of open, non-draft PRs with unresolved review threads, failing/errored CI, or CHANGES_REQUESTED. Automation-authored PRs (release-please, dependabot, renovate, *[bot], *-bot) are excluded by default โ dispatching a subagent on one is almost always wrong (no review threads to act on, protected changelog/version files). Pass --include-automation to include them, or set PR_FEEDBACK_AUTOMATION_AUTHORS to extend the recognised author list. If the array is empty, report No PRs need attention. and stop.
Print a compact dispatch table (number, author, ci, unresolved, reviewDecision, head, title) so the user can see what is about to be processed.
--dry-run short-circuit: if --dry-run was also passed, additionally print the per-PR subagent prompt that would be dispatched (one per row, using the template in REFERENCE.md "Multi-PR Subagent Prompt"), then stop. No subagents spawn, no commits, no pushes.
Dispatch subagents, capped at --limit N concurrent (default 3). For each PR call the Task tool with:
subagent_type: "general-purpose"
isolation: "worktree" โ each subagent gets its own git worktree
description: Address review feedback for PR #<n>
prompt: see REFERENCE.md "Multi-PR Subagent Prompt" for the canonical template. The prompt must instruct the subagent to switch its worktree to the PR's headRefName, run the single-PR feedback flow with --commit (not --push), and return a structured JSON summary.
Dispatch one batch of NTask calls in a single message (per the parallel-dispatch contract). When all return, dispatch the next batch until the queue is empty.
Collect subagent results. Each subagent returns JSON with: pr, branch, worktree_path, commits[], addressed[] (each with thread_id, database_id, action, reply, resolve), deferred_issues[], co_authors[], blockers[]. Treat any subagent that fails to return parseable JSON as blocked โ record its raw output and continue with the rest of the batch.
Orchestrator finalisation โ for each PR with successful commits, run sequentially (push and the GitHub mutation tools share the same rate-limit pool):
git push origin <branch> from the main checkout โ worktrees share the underlying .git/, so commits made by the subagent are already visible by branch name. No cd into the subagent's worktree is required.
Capture the resolving SHA (git rev-parse origin/<branch> after the push).
For each addressed[] entry, post the reply via mcp__github__add_reply_to_pull_request_comment, substituting the resolving SHA into any {{SHA}} placeholder the subagent left in the reply text.
Resolve threads via the GraphQL resolveReviewThread mutation per Step 6's rules. Resolution is the default after a reply โ only skip when the subagent set resolve: false for a documented exception (follow-up question, partial fix, reviewer asked to keep open, or a third-party PR without user approval). Treat any resolve: true paired with a successful reply as a mandatory call. Use:
gh api graphql -f query='mutation($id:ID!){resolveReviewThread(input:{threadId:$id}){thread{isResolved}}}' -F id="$THREAD_ID"
Re-request review per Step 5a's rules.
Skip Steps 2โ6. Go directly to Step 7 with a combined summary that includes a per-PR section plus a top-level rollup: dispatched, succeeded, blocked, total threads resolved, total commits pushed.
Failure handling
Subagent state
Orchestrator action
Returned valid JSON, has commits, no blockers
Push + reply + resolve as above
Returned valid JSON, no commits (only questions / declined nitpicks)
Skip push; still post replies and resolve declined nitpick threads
Returned valid JSON, has blockers[]
Surface in the summary; do not push partial work โ let the user decide
Failed to return parseable JSON
Surface its raw output in the summary as blocked: parse-error; do nothing further for that PR
Reported a merge conflict on git pull --ff-only
Surface in the summary as blocked: branch-out-of-sync; user resolves manually
A blocked subagent does not abort the whole batch; the orchestrator continues with the others.
Step 2: Analyze Feedback
Categorize all comments from the GraphQL response (see REFERENCE.md for category definitions):
Skip any thread where isResolved: true or isOutdated: true โ already handled.
Categorize each remaining comment as Blocking, Substantive, Suggestion, Question, or Nitpick.
For each actionable comment, capture: thread id, top-level comment databaseId, file, line, scope, and whether the body contains a ```suggestion block.
Create a todo list using TodoWrite with one item per actionable thread, including the thread id and databaseId so Steps 3โ5 can reply and resolve.
Step 3: Address Feedback
Verify before accepting โ especially claims from an automated reviewer. Before accepting or acting on any suggestion, independently verify the claim against the actual source, the live system, or upstream documentation. This matters most for automated reviewers (Gemini Code Assist, Copilot, and other bot authors), whose suggestions are frequently confidently-wrong: read the code/config the claim is about, check the rendered/live behaviour, and confirm against docs rather than applying a bot suggestion on trust. A claim that fails verification is refuted โ reply with the refutation and the supporting evidence, and do not change the code. A written refutation with evidence is a legitimate way to resolve a thread (see Step 6).
Work through actionable items systematically. For each thread, decide using the table below โ see REFERENCE.md for the full decision tree.
Comment shape
Action
Contains a ```suggestion block, fix is correct
Accept the suggestion: apply the suggestion's exact replacement to the file (see REFERENCE.md "Accepting Suggestions"). Record the comment author's login and name/email for co-author attribution in Step 4.
Contains a ```suggestion block, fix needs adjustment
Implement an improved variant; explain the deviation in the reply. Record the suggester for co-author attribution.
Inline code comment without suggestion
Read context, implement fix, verify no regressions
Claim that verification refutes (wrong on the facts)
Refuted: do not change the code. Reply with the refutation and the evidence that disproves it (the source line, rendered config, live behaviour, or doc that contradicts the claim), then resolve. Apply this whenever a bot/automated-reviewer suggestion does not survive verification.
Question / clarification
Skip code change; draft an inline reply for Step 4
Blocking review (REQUEST_CHANGES)
Address every concern before resolving any thread
Failed CI check
Identify failure type (lint/type/test/build), fix locally, run to verify
Out-of-scope feedback
Do not implement in this PR. Open a follow-up issue (see Step 3a) and reference its number in the reply.
Mark each todo in_progress while working it and completed once the file change (if any) lands locally. Do not resolve threads yet โ replies and resolution happen after the commit so reviewers see the linked SHA.
Step 3a: File follow-up issues for out-of-scope feedback
For any thread categorised as out-of-scope (or where the user opts to defer rather than implement now):
Draft a one-line title and short body that quotes the reviewer comment and links the PR thread URL.
Use mcp__github__issue_write (action create) or gh issue create -R <owner>/<repo> --title "<title>" --body "<body>" to file the issue.
Capture the returned issue number โ Step 6's reply uses it (Deferred to #<n> โ <reason>.).
Skip this step if the user has explicitly said not to file follow-ups. When ambiguous, ask via AskUserQuestion before creating an issue.
Step 4: Commit Changes (if --commit or --push)
Group related fixes into logical commits โ one commit per logical group of accepted suggestions, not one per suggestion. See REFERENCE.md for commit message format.
For any commit that contains an accepted (or adapted) suggestion, append a Co-authored-by: trailer for each unique suggester. This mirrors GitHub's "Commit suggestion" / "Add suggestion to batch" behaviour, which credits the suggester as co-author. See REFERENCE.md "Co-author Attribution" for how to construct the trailer line and resolve the suggester's email.
Run pre-commit hooks if configured, then stage any formatter changes.
Step 5: Push Changes (if --push)
git push origin HEAD
Step 5a: Re-request Review (if --push)
After a successful push that addresses substantive feedback, re-request review from any reviewer whose threads were resolved or who left a CHANGES_REQUESTED review. Skip this step when only nitpicks or questions were addressed.
Determine reviewers to re-request from the GraphQL response captured in Step 1:
latestReviews entries with state == "CHANGES_REQUESTED"
Authors of any review thread you resolved in Step 6
Then call:
gh api -X POST \
/repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<pr>/requested_reviewers \
-f 'reviewers[]=<login1>' \
-f 'reviewers[]=<login2>'
If gh api returns 422 ("Reviews may only be requested from collaborators"), the reviewer cannot be re-requested via the API โ note it in the Step 7 summary and continue.
Step 6: Reply and Resolve Threads
For every actionable thread tracked in Step 2, post a reply and then resolve the thread by default. Owner/repo/PR are the same values used in Step 1.
Resolving is the default action after replying โ leaving threads open is the exception, reserved for the explicit cases listed in step 3. A reply alone does not end the conversation in GitHub's UI: the thread stays in the reviewer's "unresolved" queue until someone clicks Resolve conversation. Without this step the PR will continue to show unresolved feedback even after every concern has been addressed.
Reply with mcp__github__add_reply_to_pull_request_comment using the top-level comment's databaseId (a number, not the GraphQL node ID). Keep replies short โ see REFERENCE.md "Reply Templates".
Code change made โ reference the commit SHA: Fixed in <sha> by <one-line summary>.
Suggestion accepted verbatim โ Accepted suggestion in <sha>.
Suggestion adapted โ explain the deviation: Applied a variant in <sha>: <reason>.
Deferred / out of scope โ reference the follow-up issue filed in Step 3a: Deferred to #<issue> โ <reason>.
Question โ answer it directly.
Refuting a suggestion (claim verification disproved) โ state the reasoning with evidence: Leaving as-is: <reason> โ <evidence that disproves the claim>.
Always resolve with the GraphQL resolveReviewThread mutation using the thread id (a PRRT_โฆ GraphQL node ID). Resolution is the default after a reply โ only skip when one of step 3's "leave open" exceptions applies. Call:
gh api graphql -f query='mutation($id:ID!){resolveReviewThread(input:{threadId:$id}){thread{isResolved}}}' -F id="$THREAD_ID"
Resolve when any of these completion conditions hold and none of step 3's "leave open" exceptions apply:
You pushed a commit that addresses the concern (Fixed in <sha>, Accepted in <sha>, Applied a variant in <sha>).
You answered the reviewer's question directly.
You refuted or declined the suggestion with explicit reasoning in the reply (a written refutation โ not silence โ completes the thread).
You deferred to a follow-up issue filed in Step 3a (the deferral and issue link are the resolution).
Resolving must happen in the same turn as the reply. Treat "reply posted but thread unresolved" as an incomplete step โ re-run the resolve call before reporting Step 7.
Leave the thread open only when one of these holds:
Your reply asks the reviewer a follow-up question (you are waiting on them).
The fix is partial โ some of the concern still applies to this PR.
The reviewer explicitly asked to keep the thread open.
You haven't pushed yet (no resolving SHA exists) โ finish Step 5, then resolve.
You're acting on a PR you don't own and the user has not approved resolving on third-party PRs.
If --commit/--push was not passed, still post replies for questions and refutations, but defer resolution until a future invocation with --push lands the SHA. Note these pending resolutions in the Step 7 summary so they're not forgotten.
Step 7: Summary Report
Provide a summary table of feedback addressed, replies posted, threads resolved, and next steps. See REFERENCE.md for the report template.
