Add tasks/ to engineering-workflow skill: PR review + respond-to-feedback#2
Conversation
…back Splits the skill into references/ (topic knowledge) and tasks/ (procedures that say which references to load and what order to work in). Adds tasks/pr-review.md (complete-diff review, batch-confirm findings with the user, post inline + verdict to GitHub) and tasks/respond-to-pr-feedback.md (triage existing comments one at a time, batch-implement agreed fixes, then reply + resolve every thread). Both use references/review-emoji-legend.md as the single source of truth for comment/verdict emoji. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 2f981efe1d
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
- Fetch commands now paginate (gh api --paginate for REST, cursor
loop for the GraphQL reviewThreads query) so a busy PR with more
than one page of comments/threads doesn't get silently under-triaged.
- Phase 3's reply step now distinguishes inline review comments
(pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies) from top-level issue comments
and review bodies (gh pr comment / issues/{pr}/comments) - the
single reply command previously shown only worked for the former.
- Step 8 now notes resolveReviewThread only applies to inline threads;
top-level comments have no "resolved" state to clear.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 7b0722d958
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
- Top-level issue comments: use paginated gh api --paginate
.../issues/{pr}/comments instead of gh pr view --json comments,
which isn't a reliable "fetch everything" source.
- GraphQL query: bump the nested per-thread comments(first:10) to
first:100 so threads with more than 10 replies aren't silently
truncated during triage/resolution.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 0b1fb714cf
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
…to-feedback pr-review.md: adds an explicit local mode alongside PR mode, for reviewing uncommitted/unpushed work before it ever becomes a PR. Confirmed findings get fixed directly in the working tree instead of posted, and the review ends with a plain readiness summary instead of a submitted GitHub verdict - steps 1 and 6-8 branch on whether a PR number exists. respond-to-pr-feedback.md: top-level issue comments/review bodies have no GitHub "resolved" state, so rerunning the task on the same PR would re-triage and re-reply to already-handled comments forever. Fixed by requiring every reply to a top-level comment to include that comment's permalink, and adding a skip step that checks for an existing permalink-marked reply before triaging. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 171649000a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
gh api --paginate .../pulls/{pr}/comments returns a flat list mixing
root comments and their replies (in_reply_to_id set); GitHub's
"create a reply" endpoint requires the root comment's ID specifically,
so a naive "reply to every fetched comment" could try to reply to a
reply and fail. Fixed by dropping that REST fetch for inline comments
entirely - the GraphQL reviewThreads query already groups comments by
thread, so comments.nodes[0] is always the root. Added databaseId to
the query (the numeric REST-style ID the reply endpoint needs; the
GraphQL id field is a different value and doesn't work there).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 61c256070f
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
Step 2 previously asserted two things it didn't actually instruct: - That isResolved already handles inline threads - true, but nothing told you to filter reviewThreads on it before triage. Now explicit. - That the permalink-marker convention prevents re-triaging top-level comments - true for the ORIGINAL comment, but the marker reply itself is just another top-level comment with nothing pointing back at it, so a rerun would treat it as new feedback and reply to its own prior reply forever. Now explicit: any comment starting with "Re: <permalink>" is a task-generated marker and is always skipped. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 0b890d4122
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
comments(first:100) on each reviewThread had no pageInfo/cursor, so a thread with more than 100 replies would silently lose later ones even though the prose already (manually) flagged this as possible. Added pageInfo to the nested connection and an explicit re-query step, keyed off the GraphQL node(id:) generic-node lookup, for any thread whose comments.pageInfo.hasNextPage is true. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Chef's kiss. Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
1 participant
Summary
.agents/skills/engineering-workflow/intoreferences/(topic knowledge) andtasks/(procedures that say which references to load and what order to work in).tasks/pr-review.md: complete-diff review, batch-confirm findings with the user, post inline comments + verdict to GitHub.tasks/respond-to-pr-feedback.md: triage existing PR comments one at a time, batch-implement agreed fixes, then reply + resolve every thread.references/review-emoji-legend.mdas the single source of truth for comment/verdict emoji (🐛/Test plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code