address-review
- Repo stars 0
- Author updated Live
- Author repo skills-registry
- Domain
- Engineering
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @tomevault-io · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Plug-and-play
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: address-review
description: Pull unresolved PR review comments and address them. Handles code fixes, spec proposal approvals…
category: engineering
runtime: no special runtime
---
# address-review output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Pull unresolved PR review comments and address them. Handles code fixes, spec proposal approvals/rejections, and pushes updates. Can be run multiple times until all comments are resolved. Use when this capability is needed..
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Process / Step 1: Identify the PR and Feature Folder / Step 2: Pull Unresolved Comments” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Pull unresolved PR review comments and address them. Handles code fixes, spec proposal approvals/rejections, and pushes updates. Can be run multiple times until all comments are resolved. Use when this capability is needed.”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Process / Step 1: Identify the PR and Feature Folder / Step 2: Pull Unresolved Comments” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source mentions slash commands such as `/address-review`; use them first when your agent supports command triggers.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Process / Step 1: Identify the PR and Feature Folder / Step 2: Pull Unresolved Comments”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: address-review
description: Pull unresolved PR review comments and address them. Handles code fixes, spec proposal approvals…
category: engineering
source: tomevault-io/skills-registry
---
# address-review
## When to use
- Pull unresolved PR review comments and address them. Handles code fixes, spec proposal approvals/rejections, and pushe…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “Process / Step 1: Identify the PR and Feature Folder / Step 2: Pull Unresolved Comments” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "address-review" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Process / Step 1: Identify the PR and Feature Folder / Step 2: Pull Unresolved Comments
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} Address Review
This skill pulls unresolved review comments from the current branch's PR and addresses them. It handles code changes, spec proposal approvals, and pushes fixes.
Process
Step 1: Identify the PR and Feature Folder
- Run
git branch --show-currentto get the current branch. - Derive the feature folder:
- Strip the
feat/prefix from the branch name. - Extract the first path segment (everything before the second
/) — this is the feature slug. - Feature folder =
spec/features/[slug]/ - Example:
feat/0023-payment-retry/eng-123-retry-endpoint→spec/features/0023-payment-retry/ - Example:
feat/0023-payment-retry→spec/features/0023-payment-retry/
- Strip the
- Use
gh pr view --json number,url,headRefNameto find the open PR for this branch. - If no PR is found, fail with a clear message.
Step 2: Pull Unresolved Comments
- Use
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/commentsto get all review comments. - Filter for unresolved/pending comments (not yet resolved by the author).
- Group comments by category:
Code Comments
General code review feedback — bugs, style, logic issues, suggestions.
Spec Proposal Comments
Comments that reference SPEC-PROPOSAL.md entries. Look for patterns like:
- "SPEC-PROPOSAL: approved" or "SP-001: approved" — reviewer approves the proposal
- "SPEC-PROPOSAL: rejected" or "SP-001: rejected" — reviewer rejects the proposal
- Other comments on SPEC-PROPOSAL.md lines
Step 3: Address Code Comments
For each unresolved code comment:
- Read the referenced file and line range.
- Understand the reviewer's concern.
- Fix the code to address the concern.
- If the fix requires test changes, update tests and ensure they pass.
- If the fix changes behavior covered by
spec://references, verify the references are still correct.
Step 4: Handle Spec Proposals
Read SPEC-PROPOSAL.md from the feature folder (if it exists).
For Approved Proposals
- Read the proposal entry (e.g. SP-001).
- Apply the proposed change to the actual spec file (e.g. update
REQUIREMENTS.md,ADR.md, orDESIGN.mdin the feature folder). - Remove the approved entry from
SPEC-PROPOSAL.md.
For Rejected Proposals
- Read the rejection reason from the review comment.
- Revert any code that was written assuming the proposed spec change.
- Adjust the implementation to work within the existing spec.
- Remove the rejected entry from
SPEC-PROPOSAL.md. - Update tests if the behavior changed.
Cleanup
If all entries in SPEC-PROPOSAL.md are resolved (approved or rejected), delete the file entirely.
Step 5: Run Tests
Run the full test suite (or at minimum, tests related to the changes) to ensure everything passes after the fixes.
Step 6: Commit and Push
- Stage all modified files.
- Commit with message:
fix(NNNN-slug): address review comments for {ISSUE-ID} - Push to the current branch.
Step 7: Report
Present a summary:
- Number of comments addressed
- Code changes made
- Spec proposals approved/rejected and files updated
- Whether SPEC-PROPOSAL.md was cleaned up
- Test results
- Suggest running
/address-reviewagain after the next review cycle - If all comments are resolved and PR is approved, remind the user to merge the PR manually
Source: aqaliarept/sdd — distributed by TomeVault.
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review