| name | rabbit-round |
| description | Process automated PR review comments systematically. Use this for CodeRabbit, Gemini, GitHub Copilot, Devin, Greptile, and similar bots. |
Rabbit Round
Process automated PR review comments systematically. Use this for
CodeRabbit, Gemini, GitHub Copilot, Devin, Greptile, and similar bots.
Instructions
-
Get context:
PR_NUMBER=$(gh pr view --json number -q '.number')
gh api user --jq '.login'
git rev-parse HEAD
-
Fetch review comments from the PR:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/"$PR_NUMBER"/comments --paginate
Filter for known bot accounts. Do not treat human review comments as bot comments.
-
Triage each bot comment:
- Accept if it improves correctness, safety, maintainability, or follows repo conventions.
- Push back if it is incorrect, overreaching, or conflicts with documented conventions.
-
Implement accepted suggestions:
- make the code changes
- group related fixes logically
- run the relevant project checks
-
Reply inline to each bot comment:
COMMENT_ID="123456789"
gh api -X POST repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/"$PR_NUMBER"/comments/"$COMMENT_ID"/replies \
-f body="[response]"
Good response patterns:
- accepted and implemented
- agreed, implemented with a small adjustment
- already addressed in commit
{hash}
- pushing back, with a concrete reason and source or repo convention
-
Never resolve human review threads. For bot threads, resolve only after:
- the change is implemented, or
- the pushback is clearly documented
-
Check nit-level comments too. Small ones still matter if they improve clarity
or remove avoidable friction.
-
Commit and push if you made changes:
- use a neutral commit message such as
fix: address review comments
- push to the active PR branch
Decision Guidelines
Accept when the suggestion:
- fixes a bug or real edge case
- improves type safety
- adds missing tests
- aligns with existing repo patterns
- tightens security or validation appropriately
Push back when the suggestion:
- assumes facts not true in this codebase
- conflicts with canonical specs or official sources
- adds complexity for little benefit
- would undo a deliberate, documented decision
- is purely stylistic and inconsistent with the repo
