watch-pr-reviews

name	watch-pr-reviews
description	After pushing to a PR branch, arm a Monitor that notifies on any new review (any reviewer, first review or re-review) landing on the current HEAD commit. Filters out reviews already present at invocation time so only genuinely new reviews fire.
allowed-tools	Bash, Monitor

Arm a Monitor with a 15-minute timeout running:

.claude/skills/watch-pr-reviews/monitor.sh <PR> [SHA] [owner/repo]

• PR is required — no safe default inside the Monitor sandbox. gh pr view uses GraphQL, which fails on keychain TLS there, so the agent arming the Monitor must pass the PR number explicitly (get it via gh pr view --json number -q .number from the main agent's shell, not the Monitor's).
• SHA defaults to git rev-parse HEAD (git-only, sandbox-safe). Any commit-ish is accepted (short SHA, branch, tag, HEAD~N, etc.); monitor.sh normalises it internally to the full 40-char form so the filter — which compares GitHub's full-length commit_id via string equality — matches.
• REPO defaults to owner/name parsed from git remote get-url origin (git-only, sandbox-safe).

Rules (load-bearing):

• Parse / HTTP errors surface as POLL-ERROR: <detail>. The script never 2>/dev/nulls anything — silenced errors ate four consecutive Monitors in one session.
• Timeout is not acceptance. If the 15-minute window fires with no event, verify manually via curl -H "Authorization: token $(gh auth token)" -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" .../pulls/<PR>/reviews and re-arm.
• Python stays in seed.py / poll.py, never inside python3 -c "...". Every attempt to inline the logic hit a shell-escape landmine (!= → \!= zsh history expansion, env-var passthrough losing state through nested subshells).
• On event, fetch inline comments with curl -H "Authorization: token $(gh auth token)" -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" .../pulls/<PR>/comments to act on specifics.
• Not every finding is worth fixing. Accept findings that address the PR's contract, a real bug, or a documented guarantee the code doesn't meet. Push back on cosmetic parity, stylistic preferences, or defensive detail the PR didn't promise — accepting every suggestion bloats the PR past its brief and is itself a scope failure. The scope-accountability-enforcer catches under-accepting (punting in-scope feedback); the reviewer (you) catches over-accepting.