pr-review-mining

name	pr-review-mining
description	Mine recurring reviewer-feedback phrases from the last N merged PRs and surface them as suggest-only [MINED:feedback] candidates.
type	skill
license	MIT
compatibility	["claude-code"]
user-invocable	false

PR review mining

Overview

Wraps scripts/pr-review-mine.sh (fetches merged PR review threads via gh, clusters repeated reviewer-feedback phrases). Output is always advisory — phrases tagged [MINED:feedback] and never auto-edited into architecture-principles.md.

When To Use

• The engineer asks: "what are reviewers asking for repeatedly?", "mine our PRs", "what should we add to our rules?"
• As part of /mtk repo-health (periodic readiness report).
• As an optional step inside setup-audit --mine-prs to seed architecture-principles.md candidates.

When NOT To Use

• The repo has fewer than 3 merged PRs — not enough signal.
• gh is unauthenticated and the engineer is offline — fail-soft will skip with a warning.
• The engineer wants to auto-edit principles — this skill never writes to architecture-principles.md.

Workflow

1. Pre-flight. Confirm gh is installed and authenticated: gh auth status >/dev/null 2>&1. If not, report the warning and stop — do not attempt to fix gh auth from inside this skill.

2. Run the miner.

   bash scripts/pr-review-mine.sh --prs 10
   

   • --prs N (default 10, range 1..50) — number of merged PRs to scan.
   • --json — machine-readable output to stdout.

3. Read the canonical patterns reference. .claude/references/pr-mining-patterns.md defines what phrases mean and which are denylisted. If the engineer sees obvious noise (e.g., "looks good to me" sneaks through), append it to the ## Denylist section of that file and re-run.

4. Suggest-only. Present each candidate phrase to the engineer with its PR citations. Do NOT modify architecture-principles.md automatically — the engineer must opt in per-phrase, prefixing the resulting principle with [MINED:feedback] and citing the PR numbers.

5. Record the run. If invoked from repo-health, the parent skill emits a "PR mining" section into .claude/repo-health-latest.md with the table.

Verification

• The script exited 0 (mining is always advisory; non-zero only on argument validation error).
• The output references concrete PR numbers (#<n>) — fabricated phrases without citations are a red flag.
• No edits were made to architecture-principles.md.
• If gh was missing or unauthenticated, the output explicitly says Skipped: <reason> rather than fabricating phrases.

Red Flags

Rationalization	Reality
"This phrase appeared once but it's clearly a rule — I'll promote it."	The miner deliberately requires ≥2 distinct PRs. Single-PR feedback is one reviewer's preference, not a team norm.
"I'll just write the mined phrase straight into architecture-principles.md."	Always tag [MINED:feedback] and cite PRs. Untagged mined rules are indistinguishable from extracted ones.
"gh failed, I'll guess what reviewers usually say."	Mining is fail-soft — when gh is unavailable, the output is empty. Do not invent phrases.