メニュー
Address code review feedback by evaluating validity and fixing issues — supports local agent feedback and GitHub PR threads. Triggers: "fix the review feedback", "address PR comments".
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/tmchow/tmc-marketplace --skill fix-code-review-feedbackコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
SKILL.md を表示中
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | fix-code-review-feedback |
| description | Address code review feedback by evaluating validity and fixing issues — supports local agent feedback and GitHub PR threads. Triggers: "fix the review feedback", "address PR comments". |
| user-invocable | true |
| context | fork |
Address code review feedback from local review agents or GitHub PRs.
This skill fixes feedback, not generates it. Use code review agents to get feedback first, then use this skill to address it.
Agent time is cheap. Tech debt is expensive.
| Trigger | Mode |
|---|---|
| Code review agent just provided feedback in conversation | Local Mode (auto-invoke) |
/fix-code-review-feedback with no args | PR Mode - Full (current branch's PR) |
| User provides link to specific comment/thread |
| PR Mode - Targeted (only that feedback) |
| Ambiguous | Ask user |
Targeted mode: When user provides a specific feedback URL, ONLY address that feedback. Do not fetch or evaluate other PR feedback unless user explicitly asks.
When a code review agent has just provided feedback:
Extract issues from the conversation - typically file:line references with descriptions.
| Category | Action |
|---|---|
| ✅ Valid concern | Fix (possibly with better approach than suggested) |
| ⚠️ Valid concern, bad suggestion | Fix differently |
| ❌ Invalid (misread code, already handled) | Skip with explanation |
| 🤔 Uncertain | Ask user |
Read files, implement fixes, verify they work. Do not commit yet.
After ALL fixes are implemented, create a single commit:
git add -A
git commit -m "Address code review feedback
- [list all changes]"
Report what was fixed vs. skipped (with reasons).
No arguments → Get current branch's PR:
gh pr view --json number,headRefName,baseRefName,url,author
Specific feedback URL provided → Targeted mode:
Targeted mode: Extract the thread ID from the URL and fetch only that thread via GraphQL node() query.
Full mode: Use GraphQL to batch-fetch all threads, comments, and reviews:
gh api graphql -f query='
query($owner: String!, $repo: String!, $pr: Int!) {
repository(owner: $owner, name: $repo) {
pullRequest(number: $pr) {
reviewThreads(first: 100) {
nodes {
id
isResolved
isOutdated
path
line
comments(first: 50) {
nodes { id body author { login } createdAt }
}
}
}
comments(first: 100) {
nodes { id body author { login } createdAt }
}
reviews(first: 50) {
nodes { id body state author { login } }
}
}
}
}' -f owner="$OWNER" -f repo="$REPO" -F pr="$PR_NUM"
For comments referencing specific lines, verify the code still matches:
git show HEAD:$FILE_PATH | sed -n "${LINE}p"
If code changed significantly, verify concern still applies before acting.
Same framework as Local Mode.
Read files, implement fixes, verify. Do not commit yet - batch all fixes.
Quote the original feedback:
> [original feedback]
Addressed: [brief description]
For invalid feedback:
> [original feedback]
Not addressing: [reason with evidence, e.g., "null check exists at line 85"]
Reply via GraphQL:
gh api graphql -f query='
mutation($threadId: ID!, $body: String!) {
addPullRequestReviewComment(input: {
pullRequestReviewThreadId: $threadId
body: $body
}) { comment { id } }
}' -f threadId="$THREAD_ID" -f body="$REPLY_BODY"
gh api graphql -f query='
mutation($threadId: ID!) {
resolveReviewThread(input: { threadId: $threadId }) {
thread { isResolved }
}
}' -f threadId="$THREAD_ID"
Single commit for all fixes:
git add -A
git commit -m "Address PR review feedback
- [list all changes]
- [threads resolved]"
git push
Always use gh CLI. Fall back to GitHub MCP only if gh fails.
Prefer high-level commands. Only use gh api when required:
| Operation | Command | Why |
|---|---|---|
| PR metadata | gh pr view --json ... | High-level, efficient |
| Add PR comment | gh pr comment --body ... | High-level, efficient |
| Fetch review threads | gh api graphql | Required - no CLI equivalent |
| Reply to thread | gh api graphql | Required - no CLI equivalent |
| Resolve thread | gh api graphql | Required - no CLI equivalent |
Do NOT use gh api for operations that have high-level equivalents.
1. Can I reproduce the concern?
NO → Skip (explain why)
2. Is concern still relevant to current code?
NO → Skip (explain code changed)
3. Would the fix improve the code?
YES → Implement
NO but concern valid → Implement better alternative
NO and concern wrong → Skip (explain)
When to ask user: Architectural changes, security implications, conflicting conventions, business logic decisions.
User: /fix-code-review-feedback
Agent:
Fetching feedback for current branch's PR (#123)...
Found 3 unresolved threads:
1. ✅ "Missing null check on user.email"
→ Adding null check at auth.js:45
2. ✅ "Unused import: lodash"
→ Removing unused import
3. ❌ "No error handling for API call"
→ Invalid: try/catch exists at line 78. Replying with explanation.
Committed and pushed. 2 fixed, 1 declined.
User: /fix-code-review-feedback https://github.com/org/repo/pull/123#discussion_r1234567
Agent:
Fetching specific feedback...
Thread: "Missing null check on user.email"
→ Valid concern. Adding null check at auth.js:45
Replied, resolved thread, committed and pushed.
[After code review agent provides feedback in conversation]
Agent:
Processing review feedback...
1. ✅ Race condition at api.ts:23 → Adding mutex lock
2. ✅ Missing type at api.ts:45 → Adding `: Error` annotation
All issues addressed and committed.