gh-pr-review-responder

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

2 scriptsChecked / no sensitive code detected

GitHub PR review threads—KEEP/DISCARD triage, replies, KEEP-only code changes, lint/test/push. Open PRs only; not for creating PRs (create-pr-jp).

19installs

Sourcenoblejasper/agent-skills

Added on2026-03-27

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add noblejasper/agent-skills gh-pr-review-responder

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

GitHub PR Review Responder

Purpose

Evaluate each review thread with KEEP vs DISCARD first (references/keep-discard-rubric.md) so low-value or out-of-scope feedback gets a clear, respectful reply without unnecessary code churn.
Only KEEP items may lead to implementation work; DISCARD threads get a reply that states the decision and criteria, then resolve when appropriate.
After KEEP code changes, verify and push per ADR 0002 (
```
pnpm lint && pnpm test
```
when defined).
SKILL.md stays in English; GitHub replies match reviewer language (references/reply-templates.md).

When to Use

"PR レビュー対応", "review comments", "address feedback",
```
gh-pr-review-responder
```
, triage with KEEP/DISCARD.

Do Not Use When

Opening or editing PR metadata only—use create-pr-jp.
Commit/push only without review—use commit-jp / push.
Branch behind base—use pull first.

Related Skills

push: Publish commits after KEEP fixes.
pull: Sync before push when needed.
commit-jp: Japanese commits for fix commits if required.
create-pr-jp: Does not apply to review threads; PR must already exist.

Prerequisites

gh
authenticated; Python 3 for scripts; open PR for current branch.

Workflow

Run bundled scripts from the skill root (directory containing this

SKILL.md

python3 scripts/fetch_review_threads.py …

and

python3 scripts/reply_review_thread.py …

. From this repo’s git root, prefix with

skills/gh-pr-review-responder/

. If commands are not found, see references/skill-root-resolution.md.

Auth:
```
gh auth status
```
; stop if unauthenticated.

Collect threads:

python3 scripts/fetch_review_threads.py --format markdown

(Optional:

--include-resolved

--include-outdated

--pr NUMBER

KEEP vs DISCARD (mandatory for each pending thread):
Use references/keep-discard-rubric.md. For each comment:
- Factual accuracy — read the actual code; note misunderstandings.
- Severity — CRITICAL / IMPORTANT / LOW.
- Diff relevance — does it target this PR’s changed lines (use
```
git diff <base>...HEAD
```
  or equivalent; align with repo base branch).
- Actionability — specific fix vs vague “consider…”.
Decision:
- DISCARD if the rubric says so (LOW, wrong fact, out-of-diff, linter-only, vague, oscillation risk, etc.).
  → Reply only using the DISCARD templates in references/reply-templates.md; do not change product code for this thread. Resolve thread when suitable.
- KEEP if CRITICAL/IMPORTANT, accurate, diff-relevant, and actionable (or KEEP with explanation if already fixed).
  → Sub-triage:
  - needs_code_change
    — implement fix, then step 6.
  - keep_replied
    — explanation or “already in this PR”; no further code (templates §1–2).
  - needs_clarification
    — KEEP but cannot act without reviewer input (template §3).
Post replies:
```
python3 scripts/reply_review_thread.py --thread-id <ID> --body-file ...
```
Include Decision: KEEP
or Decision: DISCARD
and reasoning in the body (see the §0 structure blocks in references/reply-templates.md). Top-level comments:
```
gh pr comment
```
.
```
--resolve
```
when the thread is complete.
Checks + push — run only if at least one KEEP thread required needs_code_change
:
1. pnpm lint && pnpm test
  when defined; else AGENTS.md / README /
```
package.json
```
  .
2. Fix until green; commit (commit-jp if required); git push
  .
Post failures: report command, stderr, draft text.
Final report: Counts KEEP / DISCARD; per thread
```
implemented
```
/
```
discard-replied
```
/
```
keep-replied-no-code
```
/
```
clarification
```
/
```
blocked
```
; files changed; checks; push result.

Present Results to User

KEEP vs DISCARD summary table or counts.
Explicit statement: no code was written solely for DISCARD threads.

Reply Quality Rules

DISCARD replies must name which criterion failed (severity, fact, diff, actionability)—see rubric.
KEEP replies tie to evidence: paths, commits, tests.
Match reviewer language.

Troubleshooting

Situation	Action
Scripts not found	skill-root-resolution.md
Unsure KEEP vs DISCARD	Re-read rubric; if still ambiguous, needs_clarification (not DISCARD by default)
`gh` / GraphQL errors	See stderr; retry once

Resources

references/keep-discard-rubric.md — KEEP/DISCARD criteria (source of truth).
references/reply-templates.md — structures + EN/JP templates including DISCARD.
references/skill-root-resolution.md — path resolution if
```
scripts/...
```
fails.
scripts/fetch_review_threads.py
scripts/reply_review_thread.py