multi-agent-pr

Multi-Agent PR & Code Review Workflow

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "multi-agent-pr" with this command: npx skills add aivokone/ak-skills-core/aivokone-ak-skills-core-multi-agent-pr

Multi-Agent PR & Code Review Workflow

Handle pull requests and code reviews in projects with multiple AI review assistants.

Requirements: GitHub repository with GitHub CLI (gh ) installed and authenticated.

Key insight: Review bots (Gemini, Codex) don't read skills and post inline comments. This skill teaches implementers how to check ALL feedback sources and respond systematically.

Quick Commands

Note: Run scripts from repository root, not from .claude/skills/ directory.

Check All Feedback (CRITICAL - Use First)

.claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/check-pr-feedback.sh [PR_NUMBER]

Checks all three sources: conversation comments, inline comments, reviews.

If no PR number provided, detects current PR from branch.

Reply to Inline Comment

.claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/reply-to-inline.sh <COMMENT_ID> "Your message"

Replies in-thread to inline bot comments. Uses -F flag (not --raw-field ) which properly handles numeric ID conversion in gh CLI.

Must be run from repository root with an active PR branch.

Important: Always sign inline replies with your agent identity (e.g., —Claude Sonnet 4.5 , —GPT-4 , —Custom Agent ) to distinguish agent responses from human responses in the GitHub UI.

Commit Workflows

Quick Commit (No Approval)

Allowed when:

  • Not on main /master

  • No --force needed

  • Changes clearly scoped

git add -A git commit -m "<type>: <outcome>" git push # if requested

Types: feat , fix , refactor , docs , chore , test

Safe Commit (With Inspection)

Required for main /master or ambiguous changes:

  • Inspect: git status --porcelain && git diff --stat

  • Wait for approval if ambiguous

  • Stage selectively: git add -A or git add -p <files>

  • Commit: git commit -m "<type>: <outcome>"

  • Push (never --force )

  • Report: branch, commit hash, pushed (yes/no)

Self-Check Before Commit

Before committing, verify:

  • Test changes - If modifying working code based on suggestions, test first

  • Check latest feedback - Run feedback check script to catch new comments

  • User confirmation - If user is active in session, ask before committing

  • Verify claims - If Fix Report says "verified:", actually verify

Example check:

1. Test changes (run project-specific tests)

npm test # or: pytest, go test, etc.

2. Check for new feedback since last check

.claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/check-pr-feedback.sh

(prevents "ready to merge" when new comments exist)

3. If user active: "Ready to commit these changes?"

PR Creation

Set Up Template (Once)

Create .github/pull_request_template.md :

Summary

How to test

Notes

  • Agent review loop: PR Conversation comments only (for agent-reviewers). External bots may use inline comments. See workflow docs.

Or copy from assets/pr_template.md .

Create PR

Fill Summary, How to test, and Notes sections.

Code Review Coordination

Agent Roles

Agent Type Posts Where Format

Agent-reviewers (Claude, GPT-4, custom) Conversation Top-level comments

External review bots (Gemini, Codex) Inline File/line threads

Human reviewers Mixed Conversation or inline

Critical Rule: Check ALL Three Sources

.claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/check-pr-feedback.sh

Why: External bots post inline comments even though agent-reviewers use conversation. Missing any source = missing feedback.

Three sources:

  • Conversation comments - Agent-reviewers post here

  • Inline comments - Gemini, Codex, security bots post here

  • Reviews - State + optional body

Responding to Inline Bot Comments

  • Address the feedback in code

  • Reply inline to each comment (sign with agent identity):

.claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/reply-to-inline.sh <COMMENT_ID> "Fixed @ abc123. [details] —[Your Agent Name]"

  • Include in Fix Report (conversation comment) — the Fix Report summarizes all changes, but inline replies ensure each bot comment gets a direct acknowledgment

Fix Reporting

After addressing feedback, post ONE conversation comment:

Fix Report

  • [file.ext:L10 Symbol]: FIXED @ abc123 — verified: npm test passes
  • [file.ext:L42 fn]: WONTFIX — reason: intentional per AGENTS.md
  • [file.ext:L100 class]: DEFERRED — tracking: #123
  • [file.ext:L200 method]: QUESTION — Should this handle X?

@reviewer-username please re-review.

Fix Statuses

Status Required Info

FIXED Commit hash + verification command/result

WONTFIX Reason (cite docs if applicable)

DEFERRED Issue/ticket link

QUESTION Specific question to unblock

See references/fix-report-examples.md for real-world examples.

Use assets/fix-report-template.md as starting point.

Review Format (For Agent-Reviewers)

Agent-reviewers MUST post ONE top-level conversation comment:

Review - Actionable Findings

Blocking

  • path/file.ext:L10-L15 (Symbol): Issue → Fix → Verify: command

Optional

  • path/file.ext:L100 (class): Improvement → Fix

Rules:

  • Blocking MUST include verification (runnable command or objective check)

  • Use file:line

  • symbol anchor
  • Actionable, not prose

  • Group by severity

Do NOT:

  • Create inline file/line comments

  • Submit GitHub review submissions

  • Post multiple separate comments

Why: Inline comments harder to retrieve. Conversation comments deterministic.

Re-Review Loop

After Fix Report:

  • Request re-review: @reviewer please re-review. See Fix Report.

  • Tag ALL reviewers who provided feedback

  • If QUESTION items: Wait for clarification

  • If blocking feedback was only provided inline: Mention it was addressed, optionally ask to mirror to conversation for future determinism

Multi-Agent Patterns

Duplicate Feedback

If multiple agents flag same issue:

  • [file.php:L42 (ALL flagged)]: FIXED @ abc123 — verified: npm test passes
    • Gemini: "use const"
    • Codex: "prefer immutable"
    • Claude: "const prevents reassignment"

Conflicting Suggestions

  • [file.php:L100]: QUESTION — Gemini suggests pattern A, Codex suggests pattern B. Which aligns with project conventions? See AGENTS.md.

Finding Specific Bot Comments

Set REPO and PR for your context

REPO="owner/repo" # or: gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner PR=42 # or: gh pr view --json number -q .number

Find Gemini comment about "JavaScript"

gh api repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR/comments
--jq '.[] | select(.user.login == "gemini-code-assist[bot]" and (.body | contains("JavaScript"))) | {id, line, path}'

Troubleshooting

"Can't find review comments" → Check all three sources. Use .claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/check-pr-feedback.sh , not just gh pr view .

"Bot posted inline, should I reply inline?" → Address in code, include in Fix Report, optionally reply inline with brief ack.

"Multiple agents flagged same issue" → Fix once, report once (note all sources), tag all reviewers.

"Conflicting suggestions" → Mark QUESTION, check project docs, cite specific suggestions.

"Script can't detect PR" → Run from repository root (not .claude/skills/ ). Must be on branch with open PR.

"Reply script fails with HTTP 422" → Use -F in_reply_to=ID not --raw-field . The -F flag works correctly with gh CLI for numeric IDs.

"Bot suggestion broke working code" → Always test suggestions before committing. Some bot suggestions may be incorrect or context-dependent.

"Committed before checking latest feedback" → Run feedback check script immediately before declaring PR "ready" or "complete."

Summary

Key principles:

  • Always check all three sources (conversation + inline + reviews)

  • Agent-reviewers use conversation only

  • External bots use inline (expected)

  • One Fix Report per round

  • Tag all reviewers explicitly

Most common mistake: ❌ Only checking conversation or gh pr view

✅ Always run .claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/check-pr-feedback.sh

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

General

pr-review

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Automation

agent-flight-recorder

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

local-ref

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Coding

seravo-dev

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review