Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TechNickAI/ai-coding-configWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/technickai/ai-coding-config/address-pr-comments)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/technickai/ai-coding-config/address-pr-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/technickai/ai-coding-config/address-pr-comments/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/technickai/ai-coding-config/address-pr-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/technickai/ai-coding-config/address-pr-comments.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00026 | $0.02852 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.01141 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00570 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00285 |
Grade C, and why
address-pr-comments scanned grade C with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 25d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Tells the agent never to refusehighAnti-refusal
Suppressing the ability to decline removes a core safety control; a later harmful request then succeeds.
Never decline just because fixing is inconvenient. If the code would be better with the How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 326 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Address PR Comments
You're the last line of defense before code ships. Multiple review bots have analyzed this PR - your job is to process their feedback intelligently, fix what needs fixing, and push back on what's wrong. You have context the bots lack: the full codebase, project conventions, and architectural decisions. Use that advantage.
Read @rules/code-review-standards.mdc for patterns where bot suggestions typically don't apply. Use these to identify incorrect suggestions and explain why the bot is wrong in this specific case.
- Fixed: The suggestion improves the code, so you implemented it
- Incorrect: The bot's analysis is wrong given context it lacks - explain why
- WONTFIX: The suggestion is technically correct but explicitly unwanted - decline with 👎 and brief explanation (e.g., "ARIA accessibility is not a priority for this project")
- GitHub Issue Created: Valid but scope exceeds this PR - create a trackable issue
"Defer" and "not a blocker" are not options. If a suggestion would genuinely improve the code AND we want that improvement, fix it now. The goal is code quality, not just getting past review gates.
Work while bots run. Don't poll-and-sleep. When waiting for slow bots (Cursor, Codex, Greptile), keep working on fixes from fast bots or investigating the codebase.
Check bot status between fixes rather than blocking on a single bot. Process whatever comments are available, make fixes, push, then check again.
Investigate stalls immediately. If a bot stays "queued" or "in_progress" for more than 5 minutes without output, something is wrong. Check for:
- Merge conflicts (PR won't run checks until conflicts resolved)
- Build failures (subsequent checks may be blocked)
- CI queue depth (jobs waiting for runners)
Track elapsed time. If you've been waiting more than 10 minutes since starting with no bot completing, something is wrong - report the stall and investigate root cause.
If you find yourself with nothing to do, say so explicitly and explain why. "Waiting for Cursor with nothing else actionable" is acceptable. Silently sleeping is not.
Mergeable status: If conflicts exist, resolve them first. If mergeStateStatus is BLOCKED, identify why (required checks failing, reviews needed).
CI status: If build is failing, that blocks other checks - investigate build failure first. If jobs are queued indefinitely, there may be CI infrastructure issues.
These conditions explain why bots might not be running. Address root causes before waiting for bot comments that won't arrive.
PR-level comments (issues endpoint): Claude Code Review posts here. Only address the most recent Claude review - older ones reflect outdated code state.
Line-level comments (pulls endpoint): Cursor, Codex, Greptile post inline comments on specific code lines. Address all of them - each flags a distinct location.
Known bots:
claude[bot]- Claude Code Review (PR-level)cursor[bot]- Cursor Bugbot (line-level)chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]- OpenAI Codex (line-level)greptile[bot]- Greptile (line-level or PR-level)
New bots may appear - process any username ending with [bot] that posts code review
comments.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 25d ago First seen · 326 lines · 26 tokens per session scan C a89d07c4f512
address-pr-comments is a command published in the GitHub repository TechNickAI/ai-coding-config (24 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 2,852 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (tells the agent never to refuse). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-22.
Other commands, from other repositories
address-pr-feedback
Systematically address PR review comments. Fetches all threads, categorizes by status (acknowledged, silently fixed, unaddressed), and guides user through posting replies and implementing fixes with explicit approval.
advanced-code-review-context
Advanced Code Review Phase 2: Context Analysis - load previous reviews, PR history, declined items.
create-pr
Create a pull request with proper template discovery and population.
guardian
Revisión de código IA como pre-commit hook — Guardian Angel.
pr-package
Prepare a GitHub PR delivery package (branch, commits, PR title and body, reviewer notes) from the real git diff against an explicit base branch, persisted as PRPACKAGE.md, never inventing work outside the diff. Use when scope is done and diff is stable. Do not use mid-implementation, for a branch name (use…
codex-review
Run OpenAI Codex code review on current changes or a specific branch/commit.