# Update Pr Review > Analyze comments on a reviewed PR to discover patterns, corrections, or gaps in the `/pr-review` skill's rules — then propose targeted updates. - Skill: `satejbidvai/update-pr-review` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add satejbidvai/update-pr-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/satejbidvai/update-pr-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: satejbidvai (https://skillmd.com/u/satejbidvai) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/satejbidvai/update-pr-review --- Analyze comments on a reviewed PR to discover patterns, corrections, or gaps in the `/pr-review` skill's rules — then propose targeted updates. **Input**: The argument after `/update-pr-review` is the GitHub PR URL. **Steps** 1. **Parse the PR URL** to extract `owner`, `repo`, and `pr_number`. 2. **Fetch PR comments** using GitHub CLI (run all four in parallel): ```bash # Get the authenticated user's login gh api user --jq '.login' > /tmp/pr-review-user.txt # Review comments (inline on diffs) gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments --paginate > /tmp/pr-review-comments.json # Issue-level comments (top-level conversation) gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{pr_number}/comments --paginate > /tmp/pr-issue-comments.json # Review summaries (approve/request-changes bodies) gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/reviews --paginate > /tmp/pr-reviews.json # Thread resolution state (resolved/outdated) — high-signal verdicts gh api graphql -f query='query($o:String!,$r:String!,$n:Int!){repository(owner:$o,name:$r){pullRequest(number:$n){reviewThreads(first:100){nodes{isResolved isOutdated comments(first:1){nodes{databaseId}}}}}}}' -f o={owner} -f r={repo} -F n={pr_number} > /tmp/pr-threads.json ``` After fetching, **thread the comments** — group every reply to its parent via `in_reply_to_id`, and attach each thread's `isResolved`/`isOutdated` state. Keep the PR author's and other people's replies; they carry the **verdict**. Only discard automated bot/CI/coverage comments. Split what remains into two sets: - **My comments** — top-level comments authored by the authenticated user, each with its reply thread and resolution state. The **verdict** on a comment is read from these signals, in order of trust: (1) the author's **reply text**, (2) whether the **flagged code actually changed** (`isOutdated` is a hint that it did; confirm against the latest diff when it matters), (3) `isResolved` last. Authors routinely fix code without clicking "Resolve," so an **unresolved thread is not a rebuttal** — never infer "wrong" or "ignored" from missing resolution alone. - **Others' comments** — top-level comments from other human reviewers, which teach the skill new standards. 3. **Read the current `pr-review` skill's `SKILL.md`** (locate the `pr-review` skill; do not assume a fixed path). 4. **Audit my own comments against their verdicts.** For each of my comments, read the **verdict** (reply text first, then whether the code changed, then resolution — see step 2) and classify: - **Accepted / fixed** → a "done"-style reply, or the flagged code changed. The rule (if any) behind the comment held up. No change. - **Confirmed as a question** → verification comment that checked out. No change. - **No reply and code unchanged** → genuinely ambiguous; don't guess. Treat as no signal rather than a rebuttal. - **Rebutted** → the author defended the pattern or called the comment wrong *in a reply*. Now make the distinction that governs this whole skill: **did a rule drive the comment, or not?** - A `/pr-review` rule produced it → candidate to soften (feed into category B below). - No rule drove it — a reasonable one-off miss on info the reviewer couldn't see → **expected; propose nothing.** A wrong comment is only a skill defect when a wrong rule caused it. 5. **Analyze others' comments** looking for signals in these categories (also absorb any rule-driven rebuttals from step 4): **A. Missing rules** — The reviewer flagged something the `/pr-review` command has no rule for. - Example: Reviewer says "avoid nested ternaries" but there's no rule about ternary nesting. **B. Rules that are too strict** — The reviewer explicitly approved or defended a pattern that `/pr-review` would flag. - Example: A rule says "no `as` assertions" but the reviewer accepted `as const` in a specific context. **C. Rules that are too loose** — The reviewer flagged something more specific than existing rules cover. - Example: There's a generic "use React Query" rule but the reviewer also enforces specific `staleTime` / `gcTime` defaults. **D. Wrong severity** — The reviewer treated something as blocking that `/pr-review` considers a nit, or vice versa. - Example: `/pr-review` treats schema naming as `[nit]` but the reviewer consistently requests changes for it. **E. Missing abstractions** — The reviewer pointed to codebase utilities, components, or patterns that aren't listed in "Use Existing Abstractions". - Example: Reviewer says "use `formatCurrency` helper" but it's not in the review rules. **F. Outdated rules** — Comments suggest a rule no longer applies (deprecated API, removed utility, changed convention). **G. New patterns** — The reviewer enforces a coding pattern or convention not captured anywhere in the rules. Ignore comments that are: - Pure discussion / questions without a clear standard - One-off situational feedback that wouldn't generalize - Automated bot comments (CI, linters, coverage) 6. **Present findings** grouped by category (A–G above). For each finding: - Quote the relevant comment (author, file, line if available) - State the current rule (or lack thereof) - Propose the specific change to the `pr-review` `SKILL.md` (add / modify / remove / re-severity) - Mark confidence: `high` (clear pattern, multiple signals) or `medium` (single instance but strong signal) Format: ``` ### [Category] Finding title **Comment**: "@reviewer on `file.tsx` L42: 'Don't use `useMemo` here — this is a static array, move it outside the component.'" **Current rule**: "Move constant arrays ... outside components" (Static Values Outside Render) **Gap**: Rule exists but doesn't mention `useMemo` wrapping static data specifically. **Proposed change**: Add bullet: "Flag `useMemo` wrapping static data that should just be a module-level constant." **Confidence**: high ``` 7. **Ask for confirmation** before making any changes. Present a numbered list of all proposed changes and ask which ones to apply. Wait for my response. 8. **Apply confirmed changes** to the `pr-review` skill's `SKILL.md`: - For new rules: add them under the most appropriate existing section, or create a new section if none fits. - For modified rules: edit the specific bullet in place. - For removed rules: delete the bullet (or section if empty). - For severity changes: note the new severity expectation in the rule text. - Preserve the existing formatting, heading structure, and style. 9. **Output a changelog** summarizing what was updated: ``` ## Changes applied to /pr-review - **Added** "Avoid nested ternaries" rule under Component Architecture - **Updated** Static Values section to also flag `useMemo` on constants - **Added** `formatCurrency` to Use Existing Abstractions ``` --- ## Guidelines - **No changes is a valid outcome.** If the comments don't reveal any gaps, incorrect rules, or new patterns, say so and stop. Don't force-fit changes just to produce output. - **Be conservative.** Only propose changes backed by concrete evidence from the comments. Don't invent rules from thin air. - **Generalize, don't copy.** Turn specific feedback into reusable rules. "Don't use `dayjs` here, use `formatRelativeDate`" becomes a rule about using the codebase's date formatting utilities. - **Respect the voice.** The review rules are written in a direct, imperative style. Match that tone in any additions. - **One finding per issue.** Don't bundle multiple unrelated observations into one finding. - **Deduplicate.** If multiple comments point to the same gap, consolidate into one finding with all supporting quotes.