Resolve all PR review comments (human and bot) on current PR. Fetches unanswered comments, evaluates each one, fixes real issues, dismisses false positives, and replies to every comment with the outcome.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Resolve all PR review comments (human and bot) on current PR. Fetches unanswered comments, evaluates each one, fixes real issues, dismisses false positives, and replies to every comment with the outcome.
license
MIT
compatibility
Requires git, gh (GitHub CLI), and Node.js installed.
Automatically resolve all review comments (both human and bot) on the current PR. Uses a two-phase workflow: fix all existing issues, then poll for new ones until quiet.
Prerequisites
All commands below use npx agent-reviews. If the project uses a different package manager, substitute the appropriate runner (e.g., pnpm dlx agent-reviews for pnpm, yarn dlx agent-reviews for Yarn, for Bun). Honor the user's package manager preference throughout.
bunx agent-reviews
Cloud environments only (e.g., Codespaces, remote agents): verify git author identity so CI checks can map commits to the user. Run git config --global --get user.email and if empty or a placeholder, set it manually. Skip this check in local environments.
Phase 1: FETCH & FIX (synchronous)
Step 1: Fetch All Comments (Expanded)
Run npx agent-reviews --unanswered --expanded
The CLI auto-detects the current branch, finds the associated PR, and authenticates via gh CLI or environment variables. If anything fails (no token, no PR, CLI not installed), it exits with a clear error message.
This shows all unanswered comments (both human and bot) with full detail: complete comment body (no truncation), diff hunk (code context), and all replies. Each comment shows its ID in brackets (e.g., [12345678]).
If zero comments are returned, print "No unanswered comments found" and skip to Phase 2.
Step 3: Process Each Unanswered Comment
For each comment from the expanded output, apply the appropriate evaluation based on whether the author is a bot or a human.
For Bot Comments
Read the referenced code and determine:
TRUE POSITIVE - A real bug that needs fixing
FALSE POSITIVE - Not actually a bug (intentional behavior, bot misunderstanding)
UNCERTAIN - Not sure; ask the user
Likely TRUE POSITIVE:
Code obviously violates stated behavior
Missing null checks on potentially undefined values
Type mismatches or incorrect function signatures
Logic errors in conditionals
Missing error handling for documented failure cases
Likely FALSE POSITIVE:
Bot doesn't understand the framework/library patterns
Code is intentionally structured that way (with comments explaining why)
Bot is flagging style preferences, not bugs
The "bug" is actually a feature or intentional behavior
Bot misread the code flow
For Human Comments
Read the referenced code and the reviewer's comment. Human reviewers are generally more accurate and context-aware than bots. Determine:
ACTIONABLE - The reviewer identified a real issue or requested a concrete change
DISCUSSION - The comment raises a valid point but the right approach is unclear
ALREADY ADDRESSED - The concern has already been fixed or is no longer relevant
Likely ACTIONABLE:
Reviewer points out a bug or logic error
Reviewer requests a specific code change
Reviewer identifies missing edge cases or error handling
Likely DISCUSSION -- ask the user:
Reviewer suggests an architectural change you're unsure about
Comment involves a tradeoff (performance vs readability, etc.)
The feedback is subjective without team consensus
When UNCERTAIN -- ask the user
For both bot and human comments:
The fix would require architectural changes
You're genuinely unsure if the behavior is intentional
Multiple valid interpretations exist
The fix could have unintended side effects
Act on Evaluation
If TRUE POSITIVE / ACTIONABLE: Fix the code. Track the comment ID and a brief description of the fix.
If FALSE POSITIVE: Do NOT change the code. Track the comment ID and the reason it's not a real bug.
If DISCUSSION: Ask the user to consult the PR author. Apply their decision and track it.
If ALREADY ADDRESSED: Track the comment ID and note why.
If UNCERTAIN: Ask the user. If they say skip, track it as skipped.
Do NOT reply to comments yet. Replies happen after the commit (Step 5).
Step 4: Commit and Push
After evaluating and fixing ALL unanswered comments:
Run your project's lint and type-check
Stage, commit, and push:
git add -A
git commit -m "fix: address PR review findings
{List of changes made, grouped by reviewer/bot}"
git push
Capture the commit hash from the output.
Step 5: Reply to All Comments
Now that the commit hash exists, reply to every processed comment. The --resolve flag marks the review thread as resolved on GitHub. Use it only when closing the conversation (false positives, discussions concluded, already-addressed, user-skipped), not for fresh fixes that reviewers should still verify.
For each TRUE POSITIVE / ACTIONABLE (we fixed it; leave the thread open so reviewers can verify):
Run npx agent-reviews --reply <comment_id> "Fixed in {hash}. {Brief description of the fix}"
For each FALSE POSITIVE (closing the conversation):
Run npx agent-reviews --reply <comment_id> "Won't fix: {reason}. {Explanation of why this is intentional or not applicable}" --resolve
For each DISCUSSION (after user decision) (the decision concludes the thread):
Run npx agent-reviews --reply <comment_id> "{Outcome}. {Explanation of the decision and any changes made}" --resolve
For each ALREADY ADDRESSED (nothing more to do):
Run npx agent-reviews --reply <comment_id> "Already addressed. {Explanation of when/how this was fixed}" --resolve
For each SKIPPED (user chose not to address it):
Run npx agent-reviews --reply <comment_id> "Skipped per user request" --resolve
Non-threadable comments: If a comment was posted as a PR-level issue comment or review-summary submission (not an inline review comment on a specific line), the CLI cannot post a threaded reply and will print ⊘ Skipped reply: comment is not part of a review thread. That's expected. Record the outcome in the summary and move on; do not retry.
DO NOT start Phase 2 until all replies are posted.
Phase 2: POLL FOR NEW COMMENTS (loop until quiet)
The watcher exits immediately when new comments are found (after a 5s grace period to catch batch posts). This means you run it in a loop: start watcher, process any comments it returns, restart watcher, repeat until the watcher times out with no new comments.
Step 6: Start Watcher Loop
Repeat the following until the watcher exits with no new comments:
6a. Launch the watcher in the background:
Run npx agent-reviews --watch as a background task.
6b. Wait for the background command to complete (default 10 minutes; override with --timeout).
6c. Check the output:
If new comments were found (output contains EXITING WITH NEW COMMENTS):
Use --detail <id> to read each new comment's full detail
Process them exactly as in Phase 1, Steps 3-5 (evaluate, fix, commit, push, reply)
Go back to Step 6a to restart the watcher
If no new comments (output contains WATCH COMPLETE):
Stop looping and move to the Summary Report.
Summary Report
After both phases complete, provide a summary:
## PR Review Resolution Summary
### Results
- Fixed: X issues
- Already addressed: X
- Won't fix (false positives): X
- Discussion resolved: X
- Skipped per user: X
### By Reviewer/Bot
#### cursor[bot]
- {description} - Fixed in {commit}
- {description} - Won't fix: {reason}
#### @reviewer-name
- {description} - Fixed in {commit}
### Status
All findings addressed. Watch completed.
Important Notes
Response Policy
Every comment gets a response - No silent ignores
For bots: responses help train them and prevent re-raised false positives
For humans: replies keep reviewers informed and unblock approvals
User Interaction
Ask the user when uncertain about a finding
Don't guess on architectural or business logic questions
It's better to ask than to make a wrong fix or wrong dismissal
Human reviewers often have context you don't - defer to the author when unsure
Best Practices
Verify findings before fixing - bots have false positives, humans rarely do
Keep fixes minimal and focused - don't refactor unrelated code
Ensure type-check and lint pass before committing
Group related fixes into a single commit
Copilot suggestion blocks often contain ready-to-use fixes
If a human reviewer suggests a specific code change, prefer their version unless it introduces issues
