PR Babysitter
openinterpreter/openinterpreter
Watches an open GitHub pull request until it merges, handling review comments, diagnosing CI failures and retrying flaky checks along the way.
Answering review findings: verify each claim before implementing, no performative agreement, per-item fix/reject/defer with evidence, one batched remediation round.
Install Responding To Review
$ npx skills add damianvtran/local-operator --skill responding-to-review -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install damianvtran/local-operator responding-to-review --agent claude-codeProject scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review .claude/skills/responding-to-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.
Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/
Install the "responding-to-review" agent skill from https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator/tree/main/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review into .claude/skills/responding-to-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "responding-to-review", then confirm the skill loads.Claude Code copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$skill-installer install https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator/tree/main/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-reviewType this inside Codex. $skill-installer <name> installs a curated skill from openai/skills. The installer writes to $CODEX_HOME/skills (default ~/.codex/skills). Restart Codex if the skill does not show up.
$ npx skills add damianvtran/local-operator --skill responding-to-review -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install damianvtran/local-operator responding-to-review --agent codexProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator.git skills-src && mkdir -p .agents/skills && cp -r skills-src/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review .agents/skills/responding-to-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.agents/skills/ instead of .agents/skills for a personal install.
Codex skills documentation · loads skills from .agents/skills/
Install the "responding-to-review" agent skill from https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator/tree/main/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review into .agents/skills/responding-to-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "responding-to-review", then confirm the skill loads.Codex copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add damianvtran/local-operator --skill responding-to-review -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install damianvtran/local-operator responding-to-review --agent cursorProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator.git skills-src && mkdir -p .cursor/skills && cp -r skills-src/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review .cursor/skills/responding-to-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.cursor/skills/ instead of .cursor/skills for a personal install.
Cursor skills documentation · loads skills from .cursor/skills/, .agents/skills/, .claude/skills/, .codex/skills/
Install the "responding-to-review" agent skill from https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator/tree/main/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review into .cursor/skills/responding-to-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "responding-to-review", then confirm the skill loads.Cursor copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gemini skills install https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator.git --path local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review--scope user (default) or --scope workspace; --path is the subfolder of the repo that holds the skill; --consent skips the security confirmation prompt.
$ npx skills add damianvtran/local-operator --skill responding-to-review -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install damianvtran/local-operator responding-to-review --agent gemini-cliProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator.git skills-src && mkdir -p .gemini/skills && cp -r skills-src/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review .gemini/skills/responding-to-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.gemini/skills/ instead of .gemini/skills for a personal install, then run /skills reload.
Gemini CLI skills documentation · loads skills from .gemini/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "responding-to-review" agent skill from https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator/tree/main/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review into .gemini/skills/responding-to-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "responding-to-review", then confirm the skill loads.Gemini CLI copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gh skill install damianvtran/local-operator responding-to-reviewInstalls for Copilot at project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Preview a skill first with gh skill preview. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ npx skills add damianvtran/local-operator --skill responding-to-review -a github-copilotProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.copilot/skills/.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator.git skills-src && mkdir -p .github/skills && cp -r skills-src/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review .github/skills/responding-to-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.copilot/skills/ instead of .github/skills for a personal install. Commit .github/skills so cloud agent and code review can use it.
GitHub Copilot skills documentation · loads skills from .github/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "responding-to-review" agent skill from https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator/tree/main/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review into .github/skills/responding-to-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "responding-to-review", then confirm the skill loads.GitHub Copilot copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add damianvtran/local-operator --skill responding-to-review -a opencodeOpenCode documents no install command of its own. Project install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.config/opencode/skills/.
$ gh skill install damianvtran/local-operator responding-to-review --agent opencodeProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator.git skills-src && mkdir -p .opencode/skills && cp -r skills-src/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review .opencode/skills/responding-to-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.config/opencode/skills/ instead of .opencode/skills for a personal install.
OpenCode skills documentation · loads skills from .opencode/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "responding-to-review" agent skill from https://github.com/damianvtran/local-operator/tree/main/local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review into .opencode/skills/responding-to-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "responding-to-review", then confirm the skill loads.OpenCode copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
Facts
- Skill name
responding-to-review- GitHub stars
- 217
- Token cost
- ~616 tokens
- SKILL.md length
- 355 words
- Files
- 1
- Repo updated
- First seen
- Licence
- MIT
At a glance
Answering review findings: verify each claim before implementing, no performative agreement, per-item fix/reject/defer with evidence, one batched remediation round.
- Works in 3 steps: Verify the claim. Reproduce it, or read… → Decide: fix, reject, or defer. → Answer with the decision and its…
- Responding to review
- SKILL.md covers Per finding, in order, Clarify all first, One batched round and The reply format, plus 2 more sections
- Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
What it does
Responding To Review is an agent skill from damianvtran/local-operator. Answering review findings: verify each claim before implementing, no performative agreement, per-item fix/reject/defer with evidence, one batched remediation round. Use when responding to review or remediation rounds.
Its SKILL.md is about 620 tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.
It sits in Development, covering Code review. The repository describes itself as: An open-source AI agent hub for your own machine: build organizations of collaborating agents that message each other, run in the background around the clock, and share your… The licence is MIT.
When your agent uses it
- Responding to review
- Remediation rounds
Example prompts
- “/responding-to-review”
Workflow steps
3 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.
- Verify the claim. Reproduce it, or read the code path it names. A finding can be wrong, and implementing a wrong fix adds a bug. If the…
- Decide: fix, reject, or defer.
- Answer with the decision and its support. No performative agreement ("Great catch!"). Say what happens to the finding; agreement without…
What it can do on your machine
Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 05e4c97. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.
Tool permissions
Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.
From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.
Runs code
No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.
From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.
Network
No URLs in SKILL.md.
From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.
Credentials
Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.
From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.
Context cost
Responding To Review loads about 616 tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 60 tokens; SKILL.md has 355 words of instructions outside code blocks.
Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.
Safety
Auto-check passed
The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.
Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.
SKILL.md
The full file from damianvtran/local-operator at commit 05e4c97, republished under its MIT licence (© damianvtran). 355 words, ~616 tokens.
Download SKILL.mdSave it as
.claude/skills/responding-to-review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).- name
- responding-to-review
- description
- Answering review findings: verify each claim before implementing, no performative agreement, per-item fix/reject/defer with evidence, one batched remediation round. Use when responding to review or remediation rounds.
Responding to review
Review feedback is input, not instruction. Verify before implementing; answer per item; ship one batched round.
Per finding, in order
- Verify the claim. Reproduce it, or read the code path it names. A finding can be wrong, and implementing a wrong fix adds a bug. If the finding is about evidence (a run, a frame, a number), the fix is to regenerate the evidence, not to edit the sentence.
- Decide: fix, reject, or defer.
- Answer with the decision and its support. No performative agreement ("Great catch!"). Say what happens to the finding; agreement without verification commits you to work you have not assessed.
Clarify all first
- Read the whole round before editing. If an item is genuinely unclear (you cannot state the change it asks for), ask once, for all unclear items together, before the remediation edits. One batch of questions beats three round trips.
One batched round
- Collect all accepted fixes into ONE remediation pass. Do not commit-and-reply per finding.
- Group by stream where the project does (code, tests, docs); keep it one round.
- Where several reviewers ran, answer each report's items in one combined response pass.
Show full SKILL.md (161 more words)Show less
The reply format
For each item, in the thread where the round was posted:
fixed: <what changed> (<commit SHA>)rejected: <why, with the check that shows it>deferred: <where it is recorded and why it cannot be now>
Never mark fixed without the commit; never leave an item unanswered. "Not addressed" with no reason is a rejection nobody can audit.
When you disagree
- Say so with the evidence: the test output, the code path, the spec line. Silence is the worst option; fix nothing, say nothing, and the item stays open forever.
- Once the round resolves, let it go. Re-litigating a settled item in the next round burns a round for everyone.
Red flags
- Implementing every finding unverified because "the reviewer is usually right".
- Arguing from preference with no check either way.
- Marking items fixed in a summary while the code is unchanged.
- One comment per finding instead of one batched response.
- A "fixed" whose commit does not contain the fix.
© damianvtran, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file
Files
Just SKILL.md in local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review of damianvtran/local-operator.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 05e4c97
Compare with similar skills
Responding To Review next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.
| Skill | Stars | Used in | Tokens | Auto-check | Licence | Repo updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responding To Review this skilldamianvtran/local-operator | 217 | — | ~616 | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| PR Babysitteropeninterpreter/openinterpreter | 69k | 3 repos | ~4.2k | Automated safety check: Pass | Apache-2.0 | |
| Code Review ChecklistshareAI-lab/learn-claude-code | 78k | 4 repos | ~1.1k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| Backend Code Reviewlangflow-ai/langflow | 155k | — | ~3.5k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT | |
| Mole Bug Patternstw93/Mole | 70k | — | ~2k | Automated safety check: Pass | GPL-3.0 | |
| Backend Code Reviewlanggenius/dify | 158k | — | ~676 | Automated safety check: Pass | Custom licence |
Similar skills
Code Review Checklist
shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code
Reviews code against a five-part checklist covering security, correctness, performance, maintainability and testing, and reports findings in a fixed format.
Backend Code Review
langflow-ai/langflow
Review backend code for quality, security, maintainability, and best practices based on established checklist rules.
Mole Bug Patterns
tw93/Mole
A catalog of recurring bug shapes in the Mole Mac cleaner, used to review safety-sensitive diffs for deletion safety, unbounded commands, shell traps and weak tests.
Backend Code Review
langgenius/dify
Reviews backend code under api/ for concrete, reproducible defects, routes to rule packs for architecture, schema, repositories and SQLAlchemy, and ranks findings from P0 to P3.
WooCommerce Code Review
woocommerce/woocommerce
Reviews WooCommerce code changes against the project's standards, flagging backend PHP architecture, naming, documentation, data integrity and testing violations.
More from damianvtran/local-operator
All 8 skills in this repoDesign QA
damianvtran/local-operator
Deterministic design review for UI/UX on web and terminal screens: measure contrast, spacing, overlap, clipping and copy defects, then judge the rest.
Skill Authoring
damianvtran/local-operator
Writing and improving agent skills: description as routing signal, progressive disclosure, token budgets, testing before shipping, and improving from repeated mistakes.
Code Review
damianvtran/local-operator
Reviewing code for defects: diff-first reading, severity classification, evidence over inference, finding caps, and terminal verdicts.
Data Analysis
damianvtran/local-operator
Analysing data rigorously: profile before trust (keys, missingness), reproducible queries, provenance per number, units and sanity checks.
Financial Analysis
damianvtran/local-operator
Financial figures done carefully: periods and fiscal calendars, units and currencies, reconciliation, magnitude sanity checks, sourced assumptions.
Frontend Design
damianvtran/local-operator
Designing interfaces with a deliberate point of view: plan before pixels, avoid the generic-default look, typography and colour discipline, a quality floor that is not negotiable.
Related
Categories
Questions about Responding To Review
What does Responding To Review do?
Answering review findings: verify each claim before implementing, no performative agreement, per-item fix/reject/defer with evidence, one batched remediation round. Responding To Review is an agent skill from damianvtran/local-operator. Answering review findings: verify each claim before implementing, no performative agreement, per-item fix/reject/defer with evidence, one batched remediation round.
When should I use Responding To Review?
Responding To Review fits situations like: responding to review; remediation rounds.
How do I install Responding To Review in Claude Code?
Run `npx skills add damianvtran/local-operator --skill responding-to-review -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review in damianvtran/local-operator) into .claude/skills/responding-to-review in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
How do I install Responding To Review in Codex?
Run `npx skills add damianvtran/local-operator --skill responding-to-review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (local_operator/skills/builtin/responding-to-review in damianvtran/local-operator) into .agents/skills/responding-to-review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Can I use Responding To Review in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?
Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add damianvtran/local-operator --skill responding-to-review -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/responding-to-review, .gemini/skills/responding-to-review, .github/skills/responding-to-review and .opencode/skills/responding-to-review in your project.
What does Responding To Review need to run?
SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Responding To Review is instructions for the agent only.
Does Responding To Review access the network?
SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.
Is Responding To Review safe to install?
Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.
What licence does Responding To Review use?
Responding To Review is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.
How many tokens does Responding To Review use?
About 616 tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 2.5k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.
What are the alternatives to Responding To Review?
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Responding To Review: PR Babysitter (openinterpreter/openinterpreter, 69k stars), Code Review Checklist (shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code, 78k stars), Backend Code Review (langflow-ai/langflow, 155k stars) and Mole Bug Patterns (tw93/Mole, 70k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
Who maintains Responding To Review?
damianvtran (a GitHub user) maintains it in damianvtran/local-operator, which has 217 GitHub stars. The repository was last updated on October 11, 2026.
Source: damianvtran/local-operator on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.