# Review Pr > Fetch and summarize AI-generated PR review comments (CodeRabbit, Gemini Code Assist, Codex, Claude, Copilot) and suggest actionable fixes Use when this capability is needed. - Skill: `tomevault-io/review-pr-11` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/review-pr-11` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/review-pr-11/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/review-pr-11 --- # Skill: Review PR Comments Fetch review comments from AI code review agents on a GitHub PR, categorize them by severity, and suggest fixes. ## When to Use - After CI passes and AI reviewers have posted comments on a PR. - When you want a consolidated summary of all review feedback before addressing it. **Always check ALL of these reviewers** (any combination may be active on a given repo): - CodeRabbit (`coderabbitai[bot]`) - Gemini Code Assist (`gemini-code-assist[bot]`) - Codex (`chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]`) - Claude (`claude[bot]`) - Copilot (`copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot]`, `github-actions[bot]` running Copilot review actions) A reviewer being silent or rate-limited is a valid finding — note it as "no comments" or "rate-limited", do not assume absence means nothing to address. ## Inputs The PR number is passed as an argument: `/review-pr 53` If no argument is provided, detect the current branch and find the open PR for it. ## Workflow 1. **Fetch PR comments** using `gh` CLI. Three surfaces — query all three, they hold different content: - Inline review comments: `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments` - Review bodies (summary verdicts): `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/reviews` - Issue-thread comments (Claude posts here, as do CodeRabbit summaries + rate-limit notices): `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{number}/comments` - Detect the repo owner/name from the current git remote. 2. **Filter** to AI reviewers. Use this jq pattern across all three surfaces: ```bash --jq '.[] | select(.user.login | test("(?i)^(coderabbit|gemini-code-assist|codex|chatgpt-codex-connector|claude|copilot|github-actions).*\\[bot\\]$"))' ``` Always enumerate all five reviewers explicitly in the output (`coderabbitai[bot]`, `gemini-code-assist[bot]`, `chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]`, `claude[bot]`, `copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot]`) — if one posted nothing, list it as "no comments" or "rate-limited" so the user can see at a glance which reviewers were active. Do not silently drop a reviewer just because it had no findings. 3. **Categorize** each comment: - **Critical** (must fix): Security issues, bugs, crashes, type errors. - **Warning** (should fix): Missing error handling, edge cases, best practices. - **Suggestion** (consider): Style, naming, refactoring ideas, future improvements. - **Already addressed**: Comments marked with "Addressed in commit" or similar, or whose target code no longer exists at the referenced line. 4. **For each actionable comment**, provide: - File and line reference. - What the reviewer flagged. - The suggested fix (code diff if provided by the reviewer). - Your assessment: agree, disagree with reason, or "style preference — skip". 5. **Output format**: ``` ## PR #N Review Summary ### Reviewer status | Reviewer | Findings | |---|---| | CodeRabbit | | | Gemini | | | Codex | | | Claude | | | Copilot | | ### Critical (must fix) 1. **[file:line]** — [description] _(reviewer consensus: A + B)_ Fix: [what to change] ### Warning (should fix) 1. **[file:line]** — [description] _(reviewer: X)_ Fix: [what to change] ### Suggestion (consider) 1. **[file:line]** — [description] _(reviewer: X)_ Assessment: [agree/skip with reason] ### Already Addressed - [description] — resolved in commit [hash] ### Skipped (style preferences) - [description] — [why skipping] ``` ## Important Notes - Do NOT apply fixes automatically — present the summary for the user to decide. (If the user explicitly says "address them" / "fix them" / "apply suggestions", then apply.) - Cross-reference suggestions with the project's `CLAUDE.md` coding standards. - If two or more reviewers flag the same issue, surface the consensus in the line item (`_(reviewer consensus: Claude + Codex + Gemini)_`). - Flag any suggestions that contradict the project's established patterns. - Claude reviews live on the **issue-thread** endpoint, not the pull-request reviews endpoint. Skipping the issue-thread query will silently miss every Claude review. - CodeRabbit posts its summary on the issue thread but its inline findings on the pulls/comments endpoint. Both must be checked. - Some reviewers (Copilot, Gemini) post under multiple bot identities depending on action vs app configuration. If `gh` shows an unfamiliar `*[bot]` author with a substantive review body, treat it as a real reviewer until proven otherwise. ### Handling Multi-Round Reviews When a PR has been reviewed multiple times (e.g., after pushing fixes): - Comments from earlier rounds may reference **code that no longer exists** (stale comments). - Check if a comment's file path and line still match the current code. - Mark stale comments as "Already addressed" rather than re-flagging them. - Focus the summary on **genuinely new** comments from the latest review round. - Each new push usually triggers a fresh review pass from Claude and Codex; CodeRabbit may rate-limit between rounds — note when this happens. --- > Source: [hcslomeu/tfl-monitor](https://github.com/hcslomeu/tfl-monitor) — distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io).