How do I install the Triage Review skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add helderberto/triage-review in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Triage Review safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Capability flags: makes network calls. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Triage Review?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Triage Review free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Triage Review?

helderberto (@helderberto) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Triage Review by helderberto — Agent Skill

Name: Triage Review
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: helderberto

Triage Review

Fetch unresolved review comments on a GitHub PR (Copilot bot + human reviewers), verify each against the current code, and classify as Address / Skip / Optional / Discuss with a one-line rationale. Use when the user asks which review comments to address, to triage Copilot/reviewer feedback, sort signal from noise on a PR, or decide what makes sense to fix and what not. Don't use to reply to or resolve threads (out of scope — this is read-only), or to generate a fresh review (use /code-review or /review).

helderberto Updated Sep 10, 2026

File contents

Triage Review Comments

Consume the review comments already on a PR — Copilot and human reviewers — and sort them into what's worth fixing and what isn't. This is judgment, not a fresh review: each comment is verified against the current code before a verdict.

Read-only. Never reply to threads, resolve conversations, or post anything. The output is a decision aid for the user.

Distinct from siblings: /code-review and /review generate new findings; this skill evaluates existing reviewer comments.

Workflow

Fetch with gh — pull the PR's review comments (default to the current branch's PR). Cover both inline thread comments and top-level review summaries, from Copilot and human reviewers. Keep only unresolved threads — resolution state lives in the GraphQL reviewThreads field (isResolved), not REST pulls/comments, so reach for gh api graphql when you need to filter out resolved/outdated noise. Capture author, path, line, and body for each. No unresolved comments → report that and stop.
Verify each against current code — read the file at path:line and confirm the comment still applies. Reviewers (especially bots) comment on stale diffs and miss surrounding context. An outdated: true thread defaults toward Skip unless the concern still holds in the current code. Completion: every comment has been checked against the actual code, not judged from its text alone.
Classify each comment using the rubric below. Every verdict carries a one-line rationale grounded in what you saw in step 2.
Output the triage table — grouped Address-first (see Output). Completion: every fetched comment appears in the table with a verdict and rationale.
Offer to fix — ask whether to implement the Address items. On yes, hand them to /tdd (test-first). Don't auto-implement; don't touch Skip/Optional/Discuss items.

Rubric

Verdict	When
Address	Verified against current code as a real bug, risk, correctness gap, or clearly valid improvement.
Skip	Wrong, false positive, outdated (code already changed), contradicts an established codebase convention, or outside this PR's scope. Rationale must cite the evidence, not just assert it.
Optional	Subjective/style/preference with no correctness impact — the user's call.
Discuss	Valid concern needing a decision you can't make alone (product tradeoff, breaking change, architectural direction).

Verify before judging. A comment's confidence is not evidence — Copilot produces confident false positives. Ground every verdict in the current code.
Prefer a specific rationale over a category label: "Skip — user is already null-checked at line 40" beats "Skip — not applicable".

Output

## Triage: PR #<n> — <title>  (<count> unresolved)

### Address (<n>)
- **`path:line`** · @author — <comment gist>
  → <rationale>

### Optional (<n>)
- ...

### Discuss (<n>)
- ...

### Skip (<n>)
- **`path:line`** · @author — <comment gist>
  → <why it doesn't apply, citing the code>

Error handling

gh pr view fails → run gh auth status; if not on a PR branch, ask for the PR number.
A commented file was deleted or renamed in the PR → note it and lean toward Skip (the concern likely moved).
Copilot comment references a line outside the diff → treat as low-signal; verify the surrounding code before trusting it.

---name: triage-reviewdescription: Fetch unresolved review comments on a GitHub PR (Copilot bot + human reviewers), verify each against the current code, and classify as Address / Skip / Optional / Discuss with a one-line rationale. Use when the user asks which review comments to address, to triage Copilot/reviewer feedback, sort signal from noise on a PR, or decide what makes sense to fix and what not. Don't use to reply to or resolve threads (out of scope — this is read-only), or to generate a fresh review (use /code-review or /review).---# Triage Review CommentsConsume the review comments **already on a PR** — Copilot and human reviewers — and sort them into what's worth fixing and what isn't. This is judgment, not a fresh review: each comment is verified against the current code before a verdict.**Read-only.** Never reply to threads, resolve conversations, or post anything. The output is a decision aid for the user.Distinct from siblings: `/code-review` and `/review` *generate* new findings; this skill *evaluates existing* reviewer comments.## Workflow1. **Fetch with `gh`** — pull the PR's review comments (default to the current branch's PR). Cover both inline thread comments and top-level review summaries, from Copilot and human reviewers. Keep only **unresolved** threads — resolution state lives in the GraphQL `reviewThreads` field (`isResolved`), not REST `pulls/comments`, so reach for `gh api graphql` when you need to filter out resolved/outdated noise. Capture author, `path`, `line`, and body for each. No unresolved comments → report that and stop.2. **Verify each against current code** — read the file at `path:line` and confirm the comment still applies. Reviewers (especially bots) comment on stale diffs and miss surrounding context. An `outdated: true` thread defaults toward Skip unless the concern still holds in the current code. Completion: every comment has been checked against the actual code, not judged from its text alone.3. **Classify** each comment using the rubric below. Every verdict carries a one-line rationale grounded in what you saw in step 2.4. **Output the triage table** — grouped Address-first (see Output). Completion: every fetched comment appears in the table with a verdict and rationale.5. **Offer to fix** — ask whether to implement the Address items. On yes, hand them to `/tdd` (test-first). Don't auto-implement; don't touch Skip/Optional/Discuss items.## Rubric| Verdict | When ||---|---|| **Address** | Verified against current code as a real bug, risk, correctness gap, or clearly valid improvement. || **Skip** | Wrong, false positive, outdated (code already changed), contradicts an established codebase convention, or outside this PR's scope. Rationale must cite the evidence, not just assert it. || **Optional** | Subjective/style/preference with no correctness impact — the user's call. || **Discuss** | Valid concern needing a decision you can't make alone (product tradeoff, breaking change, architectural direction). |- **Verify before judging.** A comment's confidence is not evidence — Copilot produces confident false positives. Ground every verdict in the current code.- Prefer a specific rationale over a category label: "Skip — `user` is already null-checked at line 40" beats "Skip — not applicable".## Output```## Triage: PR #<n> — <title> (<count> unresolved)### Address (<n>)- **`path:line`** · @author — <comment gist> → <rationale>### Optional (<n>)- ...### Discuss (<n>)- ...### Skip (<n>)- **`path:line`** · @author — <comment gist> → <why it doesn't apply, citing the code>```## Error handling- `gh pr view` fails → run `gh auth status`; if not on a PR branch, ask for the PR number.- A commented file was deleted or renamed in the PR → note it and lean toward Skip (the concern likely moved).- Copilot comment references a line outside the diff → treat as low-signal; verify the surrounding code before trusting it.

Frequently asked questions