Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to AlexisBalayre/claude-code-power-config. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AlexisBalayre/claude-code-power-config/main/.claude/skills/address-review-comments/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AlexisBalayre/claude-code-power-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/skills/alexisbalayre/claude-code-power-config/address-review-comments)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alexisbalayre/claude-code-power-config/address-review-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexisbalayre/claude-code-power-config/address-review-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/skills/alexisbalayre/claude-code-power-config/address-review-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexisbalayre/claude-code-power-config/address-review-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 | $0.00052 | $0.00934 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00467 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00187 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
address-review-comments scanned grade A with 0 findings 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 11d 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.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 56 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Address review comments
Take the open review comments on a PR from "what is the reviewer really asking" through to an implemented, replied-to resolution. You steer; the human decides every judgment call. Handles every open thread, human or bot. Closed and resolved threads are context only.
Process
1. Gather
Resolve the PR (the argument, or the current branch's PR via gh pr view). Pull its open review threads through gh / the GraphQL API: each comment with its file, line, author, body, and thread state. Resolved threads are context, not work. Always read the actual current code, not your recollection of it; the user may have changed it.
2. Triage
Sort each open thread into:
- settled — a pure mechanical fix, or the author already agreed an approach in-thread. Goes straight to implementation.
- needs a decision — everything else.
3. Decide (no code yet)
For each needs a decision thread, investigate the reviewer's underlying concern, not just the symptom they pointed at, until you can lay out the realistic options with their trade-offs. Then route by what is actually in dispute:
- Correctness dispute ("this finding is wrong / a false positive"): spawn a validator subagent that adversarially re-checks the finding against the actual code, given the user's rebuttal. One round only. It returns concede (a false positive, with a code-grounded reason) or defend (the issue holds, with the concrete evidence). Bias to concede when it cannot defend with evidence: the user raised the doubt, so the burden is on the finding.
- Design or approach decision: route through the
/grillingskill rather than settling it unilaterally; always provide your recommended answer. If the comment opens an architectural, ADR-worthy decision (hard to reverse, or it shifts a documented term or boundary), run/domain-modelingalongside, so the resolution lands in the repo's vocabulary or an ADR.
No code is written in this phase. The goal is alignment. The validator and the grilling session inform the decision; the user is the final authority on every thread.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 56 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 69c9eb4c7e38
address-review-comments is a skill published in the GitHub repository AlexisBalayre/claude-code-power-config (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 934 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-triage
4-phase PR backlog management with audit, deep code review, validated comments, and optional worktree setup. Use when triaging pull requests, catching up on pending code reviews, or managing a backlog of open PRs. Args: 'all' to review all, PR numbers to focus (e.g. '42 57'), 'en'/'fr' for language, no arg = audit…
validate-changes
Evaluate staged changes using LLM-as-a-Judge before committing.
pr-review
Review open PRs two ways - default is a per-PR deep review with severity-tagged findings, inline comments, and a verdict; --survey runs a risk-tiered triage digest of what's safe to merge first.
pr-triage
First-touch triage for external pull requests - verdict, label, and a welcoming comment within minutes of open.
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…