Fork Pr Operations

Fork PR Operations

Fork PRs — where the head repository differs from the base repository — have a distinct operational lifecycle. GitHub treats them with stricter security defaults that require additional steps not needed for same-repo PRs.

When to use this skill

• You are pushing to a branch on a forked repository
• CI checks are stuck in "waiting" status after a push
• You need to rebase a fork PR branch against upstream/main
• A bot reviewer posts after every push, creating multiple review rounds

Workflow approval after push

Critical: GitHub requires explicit workflow approval for fork PRs. After every push, CI jobs remain in "waiting" status until a user with write access to the base repository approves the workflow run.

Approval command

# List pending workflow runs for the PR
gh run list --repo <upstream-owner>/<upstream-repo> --branch <branch-name> --limit 5

# Approve a specific run
gh api -X POST repos/<upstream-owner>/<upstream-repo>/actions/runs/<run-id>/approve

Race condition: run not yet created

After pushing, there is a brief window (1-5 seconds) before GitHub creates the workflow run object. If you try to approve too quickly, the run won't exist yet. Retry with a short delay:

# Wait for run to appear, then approve
sleep 5
gh run list --repo <upstream-owner>/<upstream-repo> --branch <branch-name> --limit 1 --json databaseId,status --jq '.[0]'
# If status is "waiting", approve:
gh api -X POST repos/<upstream-owner>/<upstream-repo>/actions/runs/<databaseId>/approve

Permission requirements

The gh api -X POST .../approve call requires actions: write permission on the base (upstream) repository. This typically means your GitHub token needs the repo or public_repo scope, and you must have write access to the upstream repo. Fork owners without upstream write access cannot approve workflow runs — only upstream maintainers can.

gh auth status
# Verify you have repo/public_repo scope and write access to the upstream repo

Remote naming conventions

Standard remote setup for fork-based contributions:

# origin = your fork
git remote add origin https://github.com/<your-username>/<repo>.git

# upstream = canonical repository
git remote add upstream https://github.com/<canonical-owner>/<repo>.git

# Additional forks by owner name (if collaborating across forks)
git remote add <collaborator> https://github.com/<collaborator>/<repo>.git

Force-push protocol

Always use --force-with-lease, never bare --force:

# Safe: verifies remote tracking branch matches expected SHA
git push --force-with-lease origin <branch-name>

# DANGEROUS: overwrites any remote changes, including work by collaborators
git push --force origin <branch-name>  # NEVER DO THIS

--force-with-lease checks that the remote tracking branch matches your local expectation. If someone else pushed between your last fetch and your force-push, the lease check fails safely instead of destroying their work.

Rebase workflow

To sync a fork PR branch with upstream/main:

# Fetch latest from upstream
git fetch upstream

# Rebase your branch onto upstream/main
git rebase upstream/main

# Resolve conflicts if any, then continue
git rebase --continue

# Force-push the rebased branch to your fork
git push --force-with-lease origin <branch-name>

After rebase + force-push, the PR head SHA changes. All CI checks re-trigger (subject to workflow approval for fork PRs).

Stale CI verification

After a rebase or force-push, verify CI check data belongs to the current PR head:

# Get current PR head SHA
gh pr view <number> --repo <upstream-owner>/<upstream-repo> --json headRefOid --jq '.headRefOid'

# Check if CI checks match this SHA
gh pr checks <number> --repo <upstream-owner>/<upstream-repo> --json name,state,startedAt,completedAt

If check data references an older SHA, the checks are stale. Cancel obsolete runs only after confirming they are not the current head:

# Cancel a specific run (only if it's NOT the current head)
gh run cancel <run-id> --repo <upstream-owner>/<upstream-repo>

Bot review multi-round awareness

Automated bot reviewers (e.g., hermes-pr-review) post a new review after every push. If you push N times, you get N bot reviews. This is expected behavior, not a bug.

Strategy

1. Ignore APPROVE rounds from bots. A bot APPROVE after a trivial push adds no signal.
2. Scan for new findings only. Compare the latest bot review against prior rounds to identify newly raised issues.
3. Focus on human reviewer findings. Bot findings are advisory; human reviewer findings are binding.
4. Do not attempt to silence the bot. The multi-round pattern is by design.

Cross-references

• .claude/skills/commit-pr/SKILL.md — PR publication protocol, including --force-with-lease guidance and remote check verification
• .opencode/skills/swarm-pr-feedback/SKILL.md — Feedback closure workflow for addressing review findings
• .agents/skills/subprocess-safety/SKILL.md — Subprocess safety for gh CLI calls