pr-triage

name	pr-triage
description	PR triage — audit open PRs, deep review selected ones, draft and post review comments. Args: "all" to review all, PR numbers to focus (e.g. "42 57"), "fr" for French output, no arg = audit only in English.

PR Triage

Workflow in 3 phases: automatic audit → opt-in deep review → comments with mandatory user validation.

When to Use

Skill	Usage	Output
/pr-triage	Triage, review, and comment on PRs	Action table + reviews + posted comments
/repo-recap	General recap to share with the team	Markdown summary (PRs + issues + releases)

Triggers:

• Manually: /pr-triage or /pr-triage all or /pr-triage 42 57
• Proactively: when >5 open PRs without review, or PR stale >14d detected

---

Language

• Check the argument passed to this skill
• If fr or french → output tables and summary in French
• If en, english, or no argument → English (default)
• Note: GitHub comments (Phase 3) are ALWAYS in English (international audience)

---

Preconditions

git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree
gh auth status

If either fails, stop and explain what's missing.

---

Phase 1 — Audit (always executed)

Data Gathering (parallel commands)

# Repo identity
gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner

# Open PRs with full metadata
gh pr list --state open --limit 50 \
  --json number,title,author,createdAt,updatedAt,additions,deletions,changedFiles,isDraft,mergeable,reviewDecision,statusCheckRollup,body

# Collaborators (to distinguish "our PRs" from external ones)
gh api "repos/{owner}/{repo}/collaborators" --jq '.[].login'

Collaborators fallback — if gh api .../collaborators fails (403/404):

gh pr list --state merged --limit 10 --json author --jq '.[].author.login' | sort -u

If still ambiguous, ask the user via AskUserQuestion.

For each PR, fetch existing reviews AND modified files:

gh api "repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{num}/reviews" \
  --jq '[.[] | .user.login + ":" + .state] | join(", ")'

gh pr view {num} --json files --jq '[.files[].path] | join(",")'

Note on rate limiting: fetching files is N API calls (1 per PR). For repos with 20+ PRs, prioritize PRs that are candidates for overlap (same functional area, same author).

Note: author is an object {login: "..."} — always extract .author.login.

Analysis

Size classification:

Label	Additions
XS	< 50
S	50–200
M	200–500
L	500–1000
XL	> 1000

Size format: +{additions}/-{deletions}, {files} files ({label})

Detections:

• Overlaps: compare file lists across PRs — if >50% files in common → cross-reference
• Clusters: author with 3+ open PRs → suggest review order (smallest first)
• Staleness: no activity since >14d → flag "stale"
• CI status: via statusCheckRollup → clean / unstable / dirty
• Reviews: approved / changes_requested / none

PR ↔ Issue links:

• Scan each PR's body for fixes #N, closes #N, resolves #N (case-insensitive)
• If found, display in the table: Fixes #42 in the Action/Status column

Categorization:

Our PRs: author in collaborators list

External — Ready: additions ≤ 1000 AND files ≤ 10 AND mergeable ≠ CONFLICTING AND CI clean/unstable

External — Problematic: any of:

• additions > 1000 OR files > 10
• OR mergeable == CONFLICTING (merge conflict)
• OR CI dirty (statusCheckRollup contains failures)
• OR overlap with another open PR (>50% shared files)

Output — Triage Table

## Open PRs ({count})

### Our PRs
| PR | Title | Size | CI | Status |
| -- | ----- | ---- | -- | ------ |

### External — Ready for Review
| PR | Author | Title | Size | CI | Reviews | Action |
| -- | ------ | ----- | ---- | -- | ------- | ------ |

### External — Problematic
| PR | Author | Title | Size | Problem | Recommended Action |
| -- | ------ | ----- | ---- | ------- | ------------------ |

### Summary
- Quick wins: {XS/S PRs ready to merge}
- Risks: {overlaps, XL sizes, dirty CI}
- Clusters: {authors with 3+ PRs}
- Stale: {PRs with no activity >14d}
- Overlaps: {PRs touching the same files}

0 PRs → display No open PRs. and finish.

Auto-copy

After displaying the triage table, copy to clipboard:

clip() {
  if command -v pbcopy &>/dev/null; then pbcopy
  elif command -v xclip &>/dev/null; then xclip -selection clipboard
  elif command -v wl-copy &>/dev/null; then wl-copy
  else cat
  fi
}

Confirm: Triage table copied to clipboard.

---

Phase 2 — Deep Review (opt-in)

PR Selection

If argument passed:

• "all" → all external PRs
• Numbers ("42 57") → only those PRs
• No argument → propose via AskUserQuestion

If no argument, ask:

question: "Which PRs do you want to deep review?"
header: "Deep Review"
multiSelect: true
options:
  - label: "All external"
    description: "Review {N} external PRs with code-reviewer agents in parallel"
  - label: "Problematic only"
    description: "Focus on the {M} at-risk PRs (dirty CI, too large, overlaps)"
  - label: "Ready only"
    description: "Review {K} PRs ready to merge"
  - label: "Skip"
    description: "Stop here — audit only"

Draft PRs:

• Excluded from "All external" and "Ready only"
• Included in "Problematic only" (they need attention)
• To review a draft: type its number explicitly (e.g., 42)

If "Skip" → end workflow.

Running Reviews

For each selected PR, spawn a reviewer subagent via the Agent tool in parallel:

subagent_type: reviewer
prompt: |
  Review PR #{num}: "{title}" by @{author}

  **Metadata**: +{additions}/-{deletions}, {changedFiles} files ({size_label})
  **CI**: {ci_status} | **Reviews**: {existing_reviews} | **Draft**: {isDraft}

  **PR Body**:
  {body}

  **Diff**:
  {gh pr diff {num} output}

  Apply your full 10-point review protocol. Focus on:
  - Correctness and logic
  - Test coverage for new code paths
  - Security implications (injection, data exposure, permissions)
  - Cross-layer consistency (if applicable)
  - Code quality and maintainability

  Return a structured review:
  ### Critical Issues 🔴
  ### Important Issues 🟡
  ### Suggestions 🟢
  ### What's Good ✅

  Be specific: quote file:line, explain why it's an issue, suggest the fix.

Fetch diff via:

gh pr diff {num}
gh pr view {num} --json body,title,author -q '{body: .body, title: .title, author: .author.login}'

Aggregate all reports. Display a summary after all reviews complete.

---

Phase 3 — Comments (mandatory validation)

Generating Drafts

For each reviewed PR, generate a GitHub comment in English.

Rules:

• Language: English (international audience)
• Tone: professional, constructive, factual
• Always include at least 1 positive point
• Cite code lines when relevant (format file.ext:42)
• Never post without explicit user validation

Display and Validation

Display ALL drafted comments in format:

---
### Draft — PR #{num}: {title}

{full comment}

---

Then ask via AskUserQuestion:

question: "These comments are ready. Which ones do you want to post?"
header: "Post"
multiSelect: true
options:
  - label: "All ({N} comments)"
    description: "Post on all reviewed PRs"
  - label: "PR #{x} — {title_truncated}"
    description: "Post only on this PR"
  - label: "None"
    description: "Cancel — don't post anything"

Posting

For each validated comment:

gh pr comment {num} --body-file - <<'REVIEW_EOF'
{comment}
REVIEW_EOF

Confirm each post: ✅ Comment posted on PR #{num}: {title}

If "None" → No comments posted. Workflow complete.

---

Edge Cases

Situation	Behavior
0 open PRs	No open PRs. + finish
Draft PR	Flag in table, skip for review unless explicitly selected
Unknown CI	Display ? in CI column
Reviewer agent timeout	Show partial error, continue with others
gh pr diff empty	Skip that PR, notify user
Very large PR (>5000 additions)	Warn: "Partial review, diff truncated"
Collaborators API 403/404	Fallback to authors of last 10 merged PRs

---

Notes

• Always derive owner/repo via gh repo view, never hardcode
• Use gh CLI (not curl GitHub API) except for the collaborators list
• statusCheckRollup can be null → treat as ?
• mergeable can be MERGEABLE, CONFLICTING, or UNKNOWN → treat UNKNOWN as ?
• Never post without explicit user confirmation in chat
• Drafted comments must be visible BEFORE any gh pr comment