Agent skill

PR Review Followup

by Simon-Initiative in Simon-Initiative/oli-torus

Triage and address pull request review comments after a PR is open.

MITAuto-check passedDevelopment

Install PR Review Followup

skills CLI
$ npx skills add Simon-Initiative/oli-torus --skill pr-review-followup -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install Simon-Initiative/oli-torus pr-review-followup --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Simon-Initiative/oli-torus.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/.agents/skills/pr-review-followup .claude/skills/pr-review-followup && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.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/

Facts

Skill name
pr-review-followup
GitHub stars
119
Token cost
~2.2k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,070 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
2
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Triage and address pull request review comments after a PR is open.

  • Works in 12 steps: Locate the PR. → Build context before triaging. → Classify comments internally before… → …
  • Codex should read the linked ticket if present
  • SKILL.md covers Purpose, Required Resources, Workflow and Decision Rules, plus 1 more section
  • Calls gh and git

What it does

PR Review Followup is an agent skill from Simon-Initiative/oli-torus. Triage and address pull request review comments after a PR is open. Use when Codex should read the linked ticket if present, the PR description, the relevant Torus review guidelines, and all review comments to build context first; then classify comments internally, review them interactively with the user one by one, agree on an action per comment, implement only the approved changes, create a single follow-up commit, and reply thread-by-thread for anything deferred, clarified, or not taken.

Its SKILL.md is about 2.2k 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 Pull requests. The repository describes itself as: Next Generation OLI Authoring and Delivery Platform. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Codex should read the linked ticket if present
  • The PR description
  • The relevant Torus review guidelines
  • All review comments to build context first

Example prompts

  • “/pr-review-followup”

Workflow steps

12 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Locate the PR.
  2. Build context before triaging.
  3. Classify comments internally before presenting anything.
  4. Auto-ignore clearly non-actionable bot comments before presenting anything.
  5. Present an initial summary to the user.
  6. Review comments interactively, one by one.
  7. End each comment review with exactly two options.
  8. Support iterative adjustment on the same comment.
  9. After all comments are reviewed, present a final execution summary.
  10. Wait for explicit user approval before executing.
  11. Execute the agreed plan.
  12. Reply thread-by-thread for everything not implemented.

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 4140f32. 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

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • gh
    • git

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md. Its commands use gh and git, which can reach the network depending on how they are called.

    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

PR Review Followup loads about 2.2k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 129 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,070 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~129
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~2.2k

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 Simon-Initiative/oli-torus at commit 4140f32, republished under its MIT licence (© Simon-Initiative). 1,070 words, ~2,212 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/pr-review-followup/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
pr-review-followup
description
Triage and address pull request review comments after a PR is open. Use when Codex should read the linked ticket if present, the PR description, the relevant Torus review guidelines, and all review comments to build context first; then classify comments internally, review them interactively with the user one by one, agree on an action per comment, implement only the approved changes, create a single follow-up commit, and reply thread-by-thread for anything deferred, clarified, or not taken.
examples
Use pr-review-followup on PR 9123, Review the comments on my current PR and let's decide which ones to take, @codex handle the review comments on this branch
when_to_use
A GitHub PR already exists and review comments need triage, follow-up changes, or thread replies., The branch may need small code changes plus explicit…
when_not_to_use
The task is a first-pass code review of a diff that does not yet have review comments., The user only wants a local code review of unsubmitted changes., There…

Purpose

Use this skill after a PR is open and review comments already exist.

The goal is to build full PR context first, classify review comments before proposing action, then walk the user through the actionable set one comment at a time. Do not start coding or replying on GitHub before the user approves the reviewed plan.

Prefer gh for PR discovery, PR metadata, linked issue retrieval, and review thread retrieval. If the PR number is not given, detect it from the current branch first.

Required Resources

Always load before presenting recommendations:

  • .review/security.md
  • .review/performance.md

Load conditionally based on the scope of the PR:

  • .review/elixir.md
    • when the PR changes backend or Elixir code
  • .review/ui.md
    • when the PR changes UI or frontend behavior
  • .review/requirements.md
    • when the PR adds or changes docs/exec-plans/**/prd.md

Use local code and PR metadata as primary context:

  • linked ticket, if present
  • PR title and description
  • review comments and review-thread state
  • current branch diff and relevant files

Workflow

  1. Locate the PR.

    • Use gh pr status or gh pr view for the current branch when the PR number is not provided.
  2. Build context before triaging. Read:

    • the linked ticket, if there is one
    • the PR title and description
    • all review comments and bot comments
    • the relevant .review/ guidelines for the changed scope

    Extract the declared scope, explicit non-goals, follow-up work, and any ticket constraints. Treat this as required context for all later recommendations.

  3. Classify comments internally before presenting anything. Do this in the background first. Do not immediately stream a recommendation per comment.

    Supported actions:

    • implement
    • reply-and-defer
    • reply-and-ask
    • ignore
    • already-addressed
    • auto-ignore

    For each comment, also record:

    • visible author name
    • author type: ai_bot or human
    • bot subtype when identifiable, such as performance, security, requirements
  4. Auto-ignore clearly non-actionable bot comments before presenting anything. Use auto-ignore for:

    • AI bot comments that explicitly say no issues were found
    • informational risk or status comments with no requested change
    • CI or tooling noise unrelated to the PR code
    • duplicate bot comments that add no value beyond an already-triaged human comment

    Do not use auto-ignore when a bot comment contains a concrete requested change, even if it is minor or likely out of scope.

  5. Present an initial summary to the user. Do not start implementing yet.

    Distinguish clearly between:

    • comments that need user review
    • comments auto-ignored as non-actionable bot noise

    Summarize:

    • total number of comments
    • total number of comments, split as (X AI bot, Y human)
    • count by suggested action
    • count of auto-ignore comments
    • number of comments that will be reviewed interactively
    • short explanation of why the auto-ignore set is being skipped
    • short high-level situation summary

    Make it explicit that auto-ignore comments will not be reviewed one by one unless the user asks.

  6. Review comments interactively, one by one. Only review comments that are not classified as auto-ignore.

    For each comment, present:

    • Comment
    • Author
    • What It Is Asking
    • Context
    • Suggested Action
    • Why
    • Proposed Resolution

    If the proposed resolution depends on a Torus review rule, say which .review/ guideline materially affected the recommendation.

  7. End each comment review with exactly two options.

    For non-final comments:

    1. accept and continue
    2. adjust

    For the final comment:

    1. accept and view final summary
    2. adjust
  8. Support iterative adjustment on the same comment. If the user chooses adjust, continue iterating on that same comment until a final proposal is agreed. Do not advance until the user accepts.

  9. After all comments are reviewed, present a final execution summary. Show a compact mapping of:

    • comment -> agreed action

    Separate clearly:

    • code changes to implement
    • PR replies to post
    • open questions or clarification replies
  10. Wait for explicit user approval before executing. Do not edit files, post comments, create commits, or push anything before the user approves the final summary.

  11. Execute the agreed plan.

    • implement all approved code changes
    • if Elixir files changed, run mix format on the touched files before final verification
    • if files under assets/ changed, run the narrowest relevant frontend checks for the touched behavior
    • run the narrowest relevant tests or checks for the touched behavior
    • create a single commit for all accepted changes
    • before any git push, explicitly tell the user that push is the next step and that you are about to do it
    • after the push completes, send a short final completion message that makes it explicit the follow-up is finished end-to-end

    Preferred commit message: addressed review comments: <brief summary>

  12. Reply thread-by-thread for everything not implemented. Post separate replies for:

    • deferred comments
    • clarification requests
    • comments already addressed
    • comments intentionally not taken, when a response is appropriate

    Prefer replying in each original thread instead of leaving one aggregate PR comment.

Show full SKILL.md (301 more words)Show less

Decision Rules

Evaluate every comment against:

  • the linked ticket
  • the PR description
  • the actual code in the branch
  • the relevant Torus .review/ guidance

Prefer implement when the comment is:

  • a correctness bug within current scope
  • a security problem
  • a crash or reliability issue
  • a small, low-risk improvement that belongs in this PR

Prefer reply-and-defer when the comment is:

  • valid but outside current PR scope
  • explicitly deferred by the ticket or PR description
  • a larger refactor than this slice justifies
  • a broader improvement better handled in follow-up work

Prefer reply-and-ask when the comment is:

  • ambiguous
  • based on missing context
  • in tension with ticket scope or product intent
  • likely to require a user or reviewer decision

Prefer ignore when the comment is:

  • obsolete
  • duplicate
  • superseded by later discussion
  • not useful enough to warrant response

Prefer auto-ignore when the comment is:

  • clearly informational bot output with no requested action
  • a no-findings AI bot comment
  • CI or tooling noise not tied to the branch code
  • a duplicate bot comment that is fully covered by another triaged comment

Prefer already-addressed when the comment is:

  • already resolved in the branch
  • already reflected in the PR state
  • better answered by pointing to the existing code change

Guardrails

  • Do not assume every review comment should be implemented.
  • Do not start coding before the user approves the reviewed set of actions.
  • Do not batch controversial changes without user agreement.
  • Do not rewrite large areas of the PR to satisfy speculative comments.
  • Do not post PR comments before alignment with the user, unless the user explicitly asks for immediate posting.
  • Do not create multiple commits for accepted review fixes unless the user asks for that.
  • Do not run broad test suites when narrow verification is enough.
  • Keep the initial summary concise and go deep only on the current comment under review.

© Simon-Initiative, 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 .agents/skills/pr-review-followup of Simon-Initiative/oli-torus.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 4140f32

Compare with similar skills

PR Review Followup 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.

PR Review Followup compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
PR Review Followup this skillSimon-Initiative/oli-torus119—~2.2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Finishing a Development Branchobra/superpowers297k5 repos~1.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
PR Babysitteropeninterpreter/openinterpreter69k3 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Check PRonyx-dot-app/onyx32k2 repos~2.3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
PR Design DocOpenHands/OpenHands91k—~2.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
WooCommerce Code Reviewwoocommerce/woocommerce11k3 repos~1.1kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence

Similar skills

  • Walks the last step of a branch: confirm tests pass, detect the git environment, ask how to integrate, carry out your choice and clean up the worktree.

    297k GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~1.9k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • 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.

    69k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~4.2k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Check PR

    onyx-dot-app/onyx

    Checks a GitHub, GitLab, or Perforce (p4) pull request (or merge request, or shelved changelist) for unresolved review comments, failing status checks, and incomplete PR descriptions.

    32k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~2.3k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • PR Design Doc

    OpenHands/OpenHands

    For a non-trivial pull request, write a self-contained HTML design doc under the temporary .pr/ directory and link a visibility-appropriate preview in the PR description, so maintainers grasp the…

    91k GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • 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.

    11k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~1.1k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Record PR Demo

    payloadcms/payload

    A skill your agent uses when a Payload pull request needs a concise visual walkthrough for reviewers.

    45k GitHub stars~1k tokensUpdated yesterday
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from Simon-Initiative/oli-torus

  • Change Cleanup

    Simon-Initiative/oli-torus

    Clean up and harden code introduced by the current branch without drifting into broad refactors.

    119 GitHub stars~3.7k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about PR Review Followup

What does PR Review Followup do?

Triage and address pull request review comments after a PR is open. PR Review Followup is an agent skill from Simon-Initiative/oli-torus. Triage and address pull request review comments after a PR is open.

When should I use PR Review Followup?

PR Review Followup fits situations like: Codex should read the linked ticket if present; the PR description; the relevant Torus review guidelines; all review comments to build context first.

How do I install PR Review Followup in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add Simon-Initiative/oli-torus --skill pr-review-followup -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (.agents/skills/pr-review-followup in Simon-Initiative/oli-torus) into .claude/skills/pr-review-followup in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install PR Review Followup in Codex?

Run `npx skills add Simon-Initiative/oli-torus --skill pr-review-followup -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (.agents/skills/pr-review-followup in Simon-Initiative/oli-torus) into .agents/skills/pr-review-followup in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use PR Review Followup 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 Simon-Initiative/oli-torus --skill pr-review-followup -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/pr-review-followup, .gemini/skills/pr-review-followup, .github/skills/pr-review-followup and .opencode/skills/pr-review-followup in your project.

What does PR Review Followup need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, PR Review Followup needs the command-line tools its instructions call (gh and git).

Does PR Review Followup access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Its commands use gh and git, which can reach the network depending on how they are called. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is PR Review Followup 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 PR Review Followup use?

PR Review Followup 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 PR Review Followup use?

About 2.2k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 8.8k 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 PR Review Followup?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with PR Review Followup: Finishing a Development Branch (obra/superpowers, 297k stars), PR Babysitter (openinterpreter/openinterpreter, 69k stars), Check PR (onyx-dot-app/onyx, 32k stars) and PR Design Doc (OpenHands/OpenHands, 91k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains PR Review Followup?

Simon-Initiative (a GitHub organization) maintains it in Simon-Initiative/oli-torus, which has 119 GitHub stars. The repository holds 2 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 9, 2026.

Source: Simon-Initiative/oli-torus on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.