# Address Review > Triages review comments on an open pull request — from humans and from bots (CodeRabbit, bugbot, Codex, Sourcery, …) — and addresses them. Reads every comment but acts only on the actionable ones, verifying and challenging each against the code, the frozen contract, and the ADRs to weed out false positives, then auto-fixes the trivial and gates the rest behind a plan. Manually invoked, standalone — not tied to a pipeline stage. Use when the user says "address the PR reviews", "go through CodeRabbit's comments", "handle the bugbot findings", "handle the codex findings" or "respond to the review". - Skill: `enocgit/address-review` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add enocgit/address-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/enocgit/address-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: DevOps & Infra - Author: enocgit (https://skillmd.com/u/enocgit) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/enocgit/address-review --- # address-review Work through the review comments on an open PR and resolve them with evidence. Reviewers — and especially bots — are high-recall, low-precision: a large share of their comments are false positives, style nits, or misreadings of the contract. Blindly "fixing everything a reviewer said" is net-negative. So is answering comments that asked for nothing. The job of this skill is to **select what's actionable, challenge it, then act** — fixing what's real, refuting what isn't (with rationale), and deferring what's out of scope. This is standalone and **manually invoked** — it isn't bound to a pipeline stage. But it inherits the kit's conventions: the frozen contract is authoritative, sensitive areas (canonical list in the project's `AGENTS.md` → Sensitive areas) get extra care, comments cite the durable doc (ADR/PRD/contract) not the pipeline, and outward-facing actions and merges stay the human's call. It is **not** a second `code-review`. `code-review` proactively audits your own diff before you push; this skill reactively triages what _reviewers_ already said on an open PR. If a comment prompts a broader re-audit, that's `code-review`'s job — route back to it. ## Steps 1. **Identify the PR — infer, don't interrogate.** Resolve it from the current branch (`gh pr view` with no number returns the open PR for the checked-out branch), so right after you've landed a task the skill already knows which PR this is — state it and move on. Only ask the user when there's no PR for the branch or several plausible candidates. Then pull the full comment set via `gh` — conversation comments, inline review comments, and bot review summaries: - `gh pr view [n] --comments` (top-level + review summaries) - `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{n}/comments` (line-anchored review comments) - `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{n}/reviews` (review verdicts, incl. bot reviews) If `gh` isn't authenticated, say so and stop. 2. **Select the actionable set.** Read every comment, then carry forward only the ones that ask for something: a requested change, a reported defect, a question that needs an answer, or a raised concern. Drop the rest — praise, agreement, "LGTM", bot summary boilerplate, thread chatter, outdated comments on lines the diff already changed, and anything the PR author already answered. Dropped comments are not triaged, not replied to, and not resolved; report their count and nothing more. Where one thread mixes both, carry forward only the actionable part. 3. **Triage each actionable comment — verify and challenge.** Do not take a comment at face value. Check each against the actual code, the frozen contract, and the relevant ADR/PRD. Assign a verdict and print a triage table **before touching anything**: | Comment (source · location) | Verdict | Planned action | |---|---|---| | … | **Valid** / **False positive** / **Out of scope** / **Nit** | … | - **Valid** — a real defect; the reviewer is right. - **False positive** — wrong, or already handled; the code is correct as written. - **Out of scope** — legitimate but not this PR's job. - **Nit** — style/preference, no correctness impact. 4. **Act by verdict — auto-fix trivial, gate the rest.** - **Nit / trivially-correct fix** (typo, rename, obviously-safe guard) → apply it and disclose it in the report. No gate. - **Valid + non-trivial** (touches logic, a sensitive area per `AGENTS.md`, or the contract) → **STOP and gate**: present a short per-fix plan and get approval before editing. A comment that implies changing a _shipped/frozen_ contract is a decision — raise a new ADR, don't silently edit the interface. - **False positive** → do **not** change code. Draft a brief reply explaining why, citing the doc that settles it ("the frozen data contract 0001 permits null here", not "this is fine"). - **Out of scope** → prepare a `task` issue (shaped per `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/task.md`) and include its exact proposed title/body in the outward-action bundle. Use an explicit `{issue-number-or-url}` placeholder for any dependent reply or action; after approval, fill it from the create response within that same bundle. Do not scope-creep the PR. 5. **Prepare one outward-action bundle — confirm once.** After local fixes are validated, show the proposed commit and exact message, any external issue creation with its exact title/body, an explicit `{issue-number-or-url}` placeholder for dependent actions, the commit-ready diff and push target, and each thread-resolution action with its exact target. Ask for one approval covering that whole bundle. Do not create the commit or issue, push fixes, post replies, or resolve threads before approval. After approval, create the approved issue first, then fill its placeholder from the create response before performing dependent actions. Approval authorizes only the listed actions. Never include merge in the bundle. **Replies ride the bundle without preview.** Routine replies — "fixed in ``", a nit applied, a pointer to the issue just created — go out on approval; state how many, not what each says. Show the exact text only for a **critical** reply, and get approval for it with the rest of the bundle: a refutation telling a reviewer they are wrong, any claim about a shipped/frozen contract or a sensitive area, and any reply that declines or defers requested work. 6. **Report.** Summarize: what was **fixed** (with the commit-ready diff), what was **refuted** and why, what was **deferred** (including proposed issues that were not created), how many replies were posted, how many comments were dropped as non-actionable, and what still **needs the user's decision** at a gate. Distinguish created issue numbers from unapproved proposals. End with a QA checklist if any fix warrants manual verification. ## Rules - **Only actionable comments.** Praise, agreement, and boilerplate are read and counted, never triaged, replied to, or resolved. - **Triage before acting.** Always show the verdict table first; never start editing off a raw comment list. - **Challenge, don't comply.** A reviewer — human or bot — can be wrong. Refuting a comment with a clear, doc-backed rationale is a first-class outcome, not a failure to "address" it. - **Auto-fix only the trivial + obviously-correct.** Anything touching logic, a sensitive area, or the contract is gated behind a plan approval (auto-fix trivial, gate the rest). - **The contract is frozen.** A comment that wants a shipped-contract change is a new ADR, not an inline edit. - **Outward-facing = one confirmation.** The proposed commit and message, external issue creation, pushing validated fixes, posting replies, and resolving listed threads share one explicit approval when applicable. Routine replies go out on that approval unseen; critical replies — refutations, contract or sensitive-area claims, declined work — are shown in full first. Do not perform any listed action outside that approved bundle. Merging is always the human's call and is never part of the bundle. - **Cite docs, not stages** in any code comments or replies you write.