# Changes Requested

> Address CHANGES_REQUESTED review verdicts on open pull requests. Ingest reviewer findings, reproduce defects on the reviewed head, apply minimal safe fixes, verify regressions, and hand back with evidence.

- Skill: `tticom/changes-requested` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tticom/changes-requested`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tticom/changes-requested/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: tticom (https://skillmd.com/u/tticom)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tticom/changes-requested

---


# Changes-Requested Remediation

Execute a disciplined remediation loop for an open pull request that received a
`CHANGES_REQUESTED` verdict from `code-review`, `hard-review`,
`devils-advocate-review`, or a human maintainer.

**Prerequisite skills:** `publish-pr-handback`

All AgentOps skills are installed together in one skills directory. If
`publish-pr-handback` is unavailable, stop and report
`REQUIRED_SKILL_MISSING publish-pr-handback`; do not publish a free-form handback.
Use `python` for the helpers; where that name is missing use `python3` or `py -3`.
They run natively on Windows, macOS, and Linux.

This skill applies only to a PR **you authored**. If the PR was authored by
another identity, do not push to its branch: post findings or suggestions as PR
comments and stop, so authorship and independent review stay separate.

## Core Rules

1. **Never amend or force-push** published review heads. Follow-up commits must be
   added on top of the branch.
2. **Never dismiss or self-resolve** a reviewer finding without a reproducing test
   and code evidence.
3. **Reproduce before fixing**: write a discriminating negative test or minimal
   probe proving the defect on the reviewed head before modifying production code.
4. **Preserve task boundaries**: fix only the cited defects and adjacent
   regressions. Do not widen task scope or invent architecture.
5. **Publish via handback**: return the PR to its review-ready state atomically
   using `publish-pr-handback`.
6. Permission to remediate never authorises a merge, a push to a protected
   branch, deleting a branch, a credential change, or bypassing a required check.

---

## Remediation Workflow

```text
Fetch Findings → Pin Reviewed Head → Reproduce Red → Fix Green → Pre-Flight → Handback
```

### 1. Ingest Review Findings

Query GitHub for the latest review and unresolved threads. Write the ledger
**outside the repository** so it does not dirty the worktree the pre-flight
requires to be clean:

```text
python <skill-dir>/scripts/fetch_review_findings.py --repo <owner/repo> --pr <number> --output <external-dir>/review-remediation-ledger.md
```

`scripts/fetch_review_findings.py` keeps verdicts and discussion apart. An
independent reviewer's outstanding `CHANGES_REQUESTED` stays in the ledger, with its
formal review body, until that same reviewer approves it or it is dismissed. A
comment-only review, including the author's own replies, is listed under
*Discussion* and never supersedes a blocking verdict; another reviewer's approval
does not clear someone else's blocker; and the PR author's own reviews carry no
verdict. Reviews are ordered by server timestamp then review ID. It reads unresolved
review threads (GraphQL, falling back to REST comments), and flags a review or summary
comment pinned to a head older than the live PR head as STALE. A blocker on an older
head stays outstanding and is marked stale. Add `--json` for machine-readable output,
which includes `blocking_reviews` and `discussion`.

Verify:

- the PR is open and the branch matches;
- `Reviewed Head` equals the commit SHA evaluated in the latest review, and any
  STALE warning is understood;
- every inline comment and contradiction-ledger item is accounted for.

### 2. Pin the Author Worktree

Ensure the local worktree is clean and on the exact PR branch:

```text
git checkout <pr-branch>
git pull --ff-only
git rev-parse HEAD
git status --porcelain=v1
```

The printed `HEAD` must equal the reviewed head SHA. If local commits exist beyond
the reviewed head, inspect them before proceeding. Do not build fixes on
uncoordinated branch state.

### 3. Build the Remediation Plan

For each unresolved finding, identify:

1. **Root cause**: the exact condition causing failure (for example an empty
   collection passing `all()`, a dropped status filter, or branch contamination).
2. **Reproduction**: a focused test that fails at the current reviewed head (`RED`).
3. **Minimal fix**: the smallest safe change satisfying the requirement and
   preserving fail-closed behaviour.
4. **Negative controls**: values that must remain rejected.

### 4. Execute Red-to-Green Remediation

For each finding:

1. **Write the reproduction test** at the public interface or production seam. Run
   it against the unmodified code and confirm it **fails** as expected (`RED`).
2. **Apply the minimal correction** to authorised files inside task scope. Run the
   test again and confirm it **passes** (`GREEN`).
3. **Check adjacent boundaries**: test zero, one, many; test boundary values
   (`t - ε`, `t`, `t + ε`); check that valid inputs are not broken and invalid
   inputs do not fall through to defaults.

### 5. Clean-Head Pre-Flight

Before committing, run and record each of these:

1. `git status --porcelain=v1 --untracked-files=all` shows no untracked junk;
2. `git diff --check <base>...HEAD` reports no whitespace or formatting errors;
3. the repository-mandated linters and type checks;
4. the repository-mandated full test suite.

Every mandated test command must complete with exit code 0, with 0 failures and 0
unexpected errors. Skips or xfails must be explicitly justified.

### 6. Commit and Push

Stage and commit follow-up changes with a message that traces to the review
findings, then push the PR branch (never a protected branch, never with force):

```text
git add <modified-files>
git commit -m "fix: address review findings on <finding-summary>"
git push origin <pr-branch>
```

Record the new branch head SHA (`git rev-parse HEAD`).

### 7. Publish PR Handback

Construct an `author-handback.v1` packet (see `publish-pr-handback`), outside the
worktree, populating `review_findings` with one entry per finding:

```json
{
  "schema_version": "author-handback.v1",
  "task": "<task-id>",
  "repository": "<owner/repo>",
  "pr": 123,
  "head": "<new-head-sha>",
  "base": "<base-sha>",
  "changed_paths": ["<live PR changed paths>"],
  "validation_runs": [],
  "acceptance": [],
  "review_findings": [
    {
      "finding": "Inline comment <id>: empty allowed_paths list accepted",
      "disposition": "Enforced a non-empty list and stripped-string validation",
      "evidence": "tests/test_contracts.py::test_empty_contracts_rejected PASS at <new-head-sha>"
    }
  ],
  "remaining_risks": []
}
```

Populate `validation_runs` and `acceptance` exactly as `publish-pr-handback`
requires; the empty lists above only show the shape. Publish with that skill's
handback publisher, then confirm `AUTHOR_HANDBACK_PUBLICATION=PASS` is
printed. Stop and wait for independent re-review.