babysit-pr

name	babysit-pr
description	Use to monitor an open PR for AI/bot review comments, evaluate them critically, push fixes for real issues, and resolve threads — capped at a sensible duration so it self-terminates. Invoke as "babysit PR

babysit-pr — supervised PR monitoring loop

Watch a PR for new review activity, evaluate each comment via the reviewing-ai-feedback skill (which owns the accept/decline judgment), push fixes when warranted, and stop on its own.

0. Decide the duration

Default budget: 30 minutes / 6 iterations at 5-minute cadence. That covers one or two full AI-reviewer cycles after the initial push and the post-fix re-review. Beyond that, returns are sharply diminishing.

Extend (up to 60 min / 12 iterations) only if:

• A reviewer is still mid-review (eyes reaction without a posted review) at the budget boundary
• CI is still running with no failure yet
• You're actively pushing fixes (don't quit mid-flight)

Shorten if the PR is trivial (≤30 LOC chore/doc): 15 min / 3 iterations is enough.

Never schedule beyond 60 min in a single sitting. If the PR is still churning after that, hand back to the human.

1. Set up the loop

/loop 5m babysit PR #<N> per .claude/skills/babysit-pr/SKILL.md

The /loop skill creates a session-only cron (*/5 * * * *) and runs the first iteration immediately. Track iteration count in your own head — when you hit the budget, CronDelete the job and notify the human.

2. Per-iteration loop

GraphQL snippets below use <OWNER>/<REPO> placeholders — resolve from gh repo view --json owner,name -q '.owner.login + "/" + .name' (or substitute literally from the current repo) before running.

2a. Fetch status

scripts/pr-status.sh <N>

One GraphQL call returns: reviews, pending reviewers, open threads, reactions, check states. Read it carefully — state: PENDING on a reviewer means "still working", not "approved".

2b. Classify each new comment

Screen for settled re-flags first. On a multi-push PR the AI reviewer re-reads the whole diff on every push and will re-raise suggestions you already declined and resolved (the ai-rereview label re-triggers it each push, and the reviewer doesn't learn from a decline). So before evaluating, fetch resolved threads too and check each new open thread against them: if it re-raises a suggestion already declined + resolved on this PR (same file/region, same gist), skip the evaluation and resolve it with a one-line back-reference to the prior thread (per reviewing-ai-feedback). Reserve the full accept/decline pass for genuinely new threads. Once a PR has a few pushes this is the common case, and not screening for it is most of the loop's wasted cost.

Evaluate the rest via the reviewing-ai-feedback skill. It defines the accept/decline rules, false-positive patterns, accept-signals, reply style, and the in-chat reporting format. Default stance is "verify against the code; the reviewer is probably right." Decline only with a named rule. Resolve every thread you handle (accepted or declined).

2c. Resolve mechanics

gh api graphql -f query='{ repository(owner: "<OWNER>", name: "<REPO>") { pullRequest(number: N) { reviewThreads(first: 50) { nodes { id isResolved } } } } }'
gh api graphql -f query='mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_ID"}) { thread { isResolved } } }'

2d. If you pushed fixes

After git push, the AI reviewers (gated by the ai-rereview label) re-run automatically. Wait one full iteration before re-evaluating — they need 2–4 min to land.

3. Stop conditions

Stop the loop and notify the human as soon as all three hold:

1. All threads handled — every open thread is either fixed+replied+resolved, or skipped+replied+resolved
2. No pending reviewers — no state: PENDING, no unmatched eyes reaction from a bot that hasn't posted yet
3. CI complete — every check is SUCCESS or NEUTRAL. If any is FAILURE, fix it first; don't stop while CI is red

Also stop (and notify) on:

• Budget exhausted — hit your iteration cap; report what's still outstanding so the human can take over
• Unresolvable disagreement — you replied with a rationale and the same reviewer pushed back; hand to the human rather than ping-ponging
• Risky action needed — fix would touch shared infrastructure, dependencies, or anything the human should authorize first
• You're not making progress — same comment two iterations in a row with no new fix; hand off

To stop:

CronDelete <jobId>

Then send one message: PR URL, what was addressed, what was skipped (with one-line rationale each), what's still open if anything, and the final CI / reviewer state.

4. Anti-patterns

• Don't push speculative refactors. "Could be cleaner" is not a reason. The PR is in review, not redesign.
• Don't resolve a thread without replying unless it's a pure duplicate. The PR author reads the thread later and needs to know your reasoning.
• Don't commit Co-Authored-By or AI attribution.
• Don't merge. Ever. Merging is a human action.

5. Quick reference

Action	Command
One-shot status	scripts/pr-status.sh <N>
List threads + IDs	gh api graphql -f query='{ repository(owner: "<OWNER>", name: "<REPO>") { pullRequest(number: N) { reviewThreads(first: 50) { nodes { id isResolved comments(first: 5) { nodes { author { login } body } } } } } } }'
Reply on thread	gh api graphql -f query='mutation { addPullRequestReviewThreadReply(input: {pullRequestReviewThreadId: "ID", body: "..."}) { comment { id } } }'
Resolve thread	gh api graphql -f query='mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "ID"}) { thread { isResolved } } }'
Stop loop	CronDelete <jobId>