Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
开发需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计提醒

address-pr-comments地址公关评论

Agent Skill

address-pr-comments 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

1,112

周安装

45

GitHub Stars

134

下载量

349
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:address-pr-comments(地址公关评论)
来源仓库:https://github.com/absolutelyskilled/absolutelyskilled
仓库路径:skills/address-pr-comments
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/absolutelyskilled/absolutelyskilled --skill address-pr-comments
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/absolutelyskilled/absolutelyskilled --skill address-pr-comments

简介

address-pr-comments 自动读取 PR 评审意见,判断有效性并修改代码。

  • 支持接受或礼貌拒绝评论,批量回复后交由用户最终确认。
  • 利用 gh CLI 获取评论内容,结合代码变更完成闭环处理。
  • 使用前需确保 gh 已认证,并具备目标仓库的读写权限。
  • 适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

SKILL.md

When this skill is activated, always start your first response with the:speech_balloon: emoji.

Address PR Review Comments

Automates the workflow of reading open PR review comments, understanding each one, making code changes where the feedback is valid, and posting thoughtful replies to every comment - all via the gh CLI. The agent exercises judgment on which comments to accept vs. respectfully defer, and batches all replies for user review before posting.


When to use this skill

Trigger this skill when the user:

  • Wants to address or respond to PR review comments
  • Says "handle my PR feedback" or "fix review comments"
  • Asks to reply to open review threads on a GitHub PR
  • Wants to process unresolved review comments on their branch
  • Says "address the PR comments" or "respond to reviewer"
  • Needs to batch-reply to all open comments on a PR

Do NOT trigger this skill for:

  • Creating a new PR or writing a PR description
  • Reviewing someone else's PR (that's code-review, not addressing comments)
  • General git operations unrelated to PR review comments

Prerequisites

The gh CLI must be authenticated. Verify with:

gh auth status

The user should be on the branch associated with the PR, or provide a PR number/URL.


Core workflow

Step 1 - Identify the PR

Determine the PR number. If the user doesn't specify one:

gh pr view --json number,title,url -q '.number'
Gotcha: This only works if the current branch has an open PR. If it fails, ask the user for the PR number or URL.

Step 2 - Fetch all review comments

Fetch all review comments (not issue comments) on the PR:

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments --paginate

Each comment object contains:

  • id - unique comment ID
  • body - the reviewer's comment text
  • path - file path the comment is on
  • line / original_line - line number in the diff
  • diff_hunk - surrounding diff context
  • in_reply_to_id - if this is a reply to another comment (threaded)
  • user.login - who left the comment

Also fetch review-level comments (top-level review bodies):

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/reviews --paginate

Step 3 - Filter to unaddressed comments

A comment is "unaddressed" if:

  1. It was NOT written by the PR author (the user)
  2. It has no reply from the PR author in its thread
  3. It is not a bot comment

To check threads, group comments by in_reply_to_id. A root comment (no in_reply_to_id) that has no reply from the PR author's login is unaddressed.

Gotcha: The in_reply_to_id field links replies to their parent comment. Comments without this field are root comments. Always check the full thread before deciding a comment is unaddressed.

Step 4 - Read code context and evaluate each comment

For each unaddressed comment:

  1. Read the file at the path mentioned in path
  2. Understand the reviewer's suggestion in context
  3. Decide: agree (the suggestion improves the code) or defer (current approach is better)

Agreement criteria:

  • The suggestion fixes a real bug or edge case
  • It improves readability, performance, or maintainability
  • It follows project conventions the current code missed
  • It catches a typo, naming issue, or documentation gap

Defer criteria (respectfully):

  • The suggestion would introduce unnecessary complexity
  • The current approach was intentional and has good reasons
  • The suggestion conflicts with project conventions or requirements
  • The comment is based on a misunderstanding of the context

Step 5 - Make code changes for agreed comments

For each agreed comment, make the code change. Track what was changed:

  • File path and what was modified
  • Which comment prompted the change
Gotcha: Multiple comments may affect the same file or even the same lines. Process them carefully to avoid conflicting edits. Read the file fresh before each edit if multiple comments target the same file.

Step 6 - Draft all replies (batch mode)

Draft replies for ALL comments before posting any. Present them to the user for review.

Reply tone guidelines:

  • Be humble and thankful: "Good catch!", "Thanks for flagging this!", "Great suggestion, updated!"
  • For agreed + changed: mention the specific change made
  • For deferred: explain the reasoning respectfully, stay open to further discussion
  • Keep replies concise - 1-3 sentences max
  • Never be defensive or dismissive

Reply templates:

For agreed comments where changes were made:

Good catch! Updated [brief description of change]. Thanks for the review!
Thanks for flagging this - you're right. Fixed in the latest push.
Great suggestion! Refactored to [what was done]. Appreciate the feedback.

For deferred comments:

Thanks for the suggestion! I considered this, but went with [current approach] because [reason]. Happy to discuss further if you see issues with this approach.
Appreciate the review! The current implementation is intentional here - [brief reason]. Let me know if you think there's still a concern.

Step 7 - Present batch to user for approval

Before posting, present a summary table:

| # | File | Comment (summary) | Action | Reply (draft) |
|---|------|-------------------|--------|---------------|
| 1 | src/api.ts:42 | Missing null check | Agreed - Fixed | "Good catch! Added null check..." |
| 2 | src/utils.ts:15 | Use lodash instead | Deferred | "Thanks! Kept native impl because..." |

Ask the user to approve, edit, or skip specific replies.

Step 8 - Post replies

Post each reply using the GitHub API:

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments \
  -method POST \
  -f body="Good catch! Updated the null check. Thanks for the review!" \
  -F in_reply_to={parent_comment_id}
Gotcha: Use in_reply_to to thread the reply under the original comment. Do NOT create a new top-level review comment - always reply in the existing thread. The in_reply_to value should be the id of the root comment in the thread.

Error handling

ErrorCauseResolution
gh: not foundgh CLI not installedAsk user to install: brew install gh
HTTP 401gh not authenticatedRun gh auth login
HTTP 404 on PRWrong repo or PR doesn't existVerify PR number and repo
HTTP 422 on replyInvalid in_reply_to IDVerify the comment ID exists and belongs to the PR
No unaddressed commentsAll comments already replied toInform the user - nothing to do

Anti-patterns

MistakeWhy it's wrongWhat to do instead
Agreeing with everythingWastes effort, may introduce bad changesExercise judgment - defer when current approach is better
Being defensive in repliesCreates friction, poor collaborationStay humble: "Thanks for the suggestion" even when deferring
Posting replies before user approvalUser loses control over what's postedAlways batch and present for approval first
Replying as top-level commentsBreaks the review thread structureAlways use in_reply_to to thread replies
Ignoring diff contextMay misunderstand what the reviewer is pointing atAlways read diff_hunk and the full file before deciding

References

For detailed information on specific topics, read the relevant file from references/:

  • references/gh-api-reference.md - Full GitHub API endpoints for PR reviews and comments

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

38.49%
按下载量换算134

Claude

28.26%
按下载量换算99

Cursor

19.15%
按下载量换算67

Gemini CLI

8.88%
按下载量换算31

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills