fix-review

When the user asks to fix, address, or work on PR review comments — fetch review comments from a GitHub pull request and apply fixes to the local codebase. Requires gh CLI.

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 "fix-review" with this command: npx skills add generaljerel/chalk-skills/generaljerel-chalk-skills-fix-review

Fix PR Review Comments

Fetch review comments from a GitHub PR and apply fixes to the local codebase.

Current PR context

!gh pr view --json number,url,headRefName 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_PR_FOUND"

Step 1: Identify the PR

If the user provided a PR number as $ARGUMENTS, use that instead of the auto-detected PR above.

If no PR is found (output shows NO_PR_FOUND and no argument was given), stop and tell the user:

  • There is no open PR for the current branch
  • They need to either push and create a PR first, or provide a PR number

Step 2: Verify gh CLI is available

gh --version 2>/dev/null || echo "GH_NOT_FOUND"

If gh is not installed, stop and tell the user to install it: https://cli.github.com

Step 3: Fetch review comments

Fetch all inline review comments on the PR:

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments --paginate

Each comment object has these relevant fields:

  • path — file path
  • line (or original_line) — line number in the new file
  • body — the comment text
  • diff_hunk — surrounding diff context
  • user.login — who posted it

Step 4: Parse and classify comments

Bot review comments (structured severity markers)

Look for severity markers in the comment body:

  • **🔴 Critical** — Must fix. Production crash, security, data loss.
  • **🟠 High** — Must fix. Significant bugs, logical flaws.
  • **🟡 Medium** — Should fix. Tech debt, best practice deviation.
  • **🟢 Low** — Optional. Nitpick, stylistic.
  • **✨ Praise** — Skip. Positive feedback.

Also extract from the body:

  • Category (e.g. **✅ Correctness**, **🛡️ Security**) — appears after severity on the first line
  • Comment text — the main feedback paragraph
  • Why it matters — appears in a blockquote starting with 💡 **Why it matters:**
  • Code suggestion — appears in a ```suggestion fenced block (GitHub's suggested change format)

Human review comments (no severity markers)

If a comment has no structured severity markers, classify it as a human comment. Do NOT auto-fix these — list them separately for the user to address manually.

Fallback: no bot comments found

If there are zero comments with severity markers, treat ALL comments as potentially actionable:

  • Show them to the user in a summary table
  • Ask which ones to address
  • Only proceed with explicit user confirmation

Step 5: Apply fixes

Sort bot comments by severity: Critical > High > Medium > Low.

For each comment (Critical, High, and Medium severity):

  1. Read the file at path
  2. Understand the issue described in the comment
  3. If a suggestion block exists, use it as a strong hint — but verify it makes sense in context before applying blindly
  4. Show the proposed fix to the user and ask for explicit confirmation before applying it.
  5. If a comment is unclear or the fix would require broader refactoring beyond the scope, note it and skip

For Low severity: skip unless trivially fixable (one-line change).

For Praise: skip entirely.

Step 6: Summary

After applying fixes, provide a summary table:

SeverityFileLineStatusNotes
🔴 Criticalpath/to/file.ts42✅ FixedBrief description
🟠 Highpath/to/other.ts17⏭️ SkippedRequires broader refactor

Then list:

  • Skipped comments with reasoning
  • Human feedback (non-bot comments) that the user should address manually

Rules

  • Do NOT blindly apply suggestions without reading the surrounding code
  • Do NOT modify files that weren't mentioned in review comments
  • If there are no review comments on the PR, tell the user and stop
  • Human review comments should be shown to the user but not auto-fixed — list them separately as "Human feedback to address"
  • If gh CLI is not authenticated, tell the user to run gh auth login

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

create-review

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

fix-findings

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

create-handoff

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

review-changes

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review