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.
npx skills add equinor/fusion-skills --skill fusion-github-review-resolutiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/equinor/fusion-skillsWrote 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/equinor/fusion-skills/fusion-github-review-resolution)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/equinor/fusion-skills/fusion-github-review-resolution"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/equinor/fusion-skills/fusion-github-review-resolution/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/equinor/fusion-skills/fusion-github-review-resolution"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/equinor/fusion-skills/fusion-github-review-resolution.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk warn
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 | $0.00107 | $0.03124 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.01562 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00625 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00312 |
Grade A, and why
fusion-github-review-resolution 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 9d 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 — 222 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Resolve GitHub Review Comments
When to use
Use this skill when a pull request has unresolved inline review comments and you need a repeatable, auditable closure workflow.
Typical triggers (skill should activate on all of these):
URL patterns — activate immediately:
https://github.com/<owner>/<repo>/pull/<number>#pullrequestreview-<id>https://github.com/<owner>/<repo>/pull/<number>(when context implies review work)
Explicit user requests:
- "Fix the review comments"
- "Address the review feedback on this PR"
- "There are unresolved review comments — fix them"
- "Resolve the conversations on this PR"
- "Handle all unresolved comments on this PR"
- "For each review comment: fix, test, commit, reply, resolve"
- "Close the open review threads"
- "Check this review and resolve the conversation when fixed"
- "Resolve outstanding review feedback"
- "The PR has changes requested — fix it"
Implicit / agent-detected:
- A PR is in "changes requested" state and the agent is asked to work on it
- A PR has unresolved review threads and the user asks to improve or merge the PR
- An agent working on a PR detects open review conversations
When not to use
- No unresolved review comments exist
- Request is only to summarize or describe feedback without code changes
- All targeted threads are already resolved or outdated and acknowledged
- Branch/worktree is intentionally read-only
Required inputs
Collect before execution:
- repository owner/name
- pull request number or URL
- optional review id to scope comments (e.g.
pullrequestreview-<id>) - branch/worktree decision (skip asking if the current checkout is already on the PR's head branch — see step 1)
- required validation commands for the repository
When a review URL is provided (
github.com/<owner>/<repo>/pull/<number>#pullrequestreview-<id>), auto-extract owner, repo, PR number, and review id from it. Only branch/worktree choice and validation commands still need confirming.
What ships with it
9 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
- assets/add-pull-request-review-thread-reply.graphql 209 B
- assets/pull-request-review-threads.graphql 716 B
- assets/pull-request-reviews.graphql 349 B
- assets/resolve-review-thread.graphql 154 B
- assets/review-resolution-checklist.md 2.8 KB
- assets/unresolved-thread-count-for-review.graphql 433 B
- CHANGELOG.md 5.6 KB
- scripts/get-review-comments.sh 5.5 KB runs code
- scripts/resolve-review-comments.sh 12 KB runs code
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 222 lines · 107 tokens per session scan A a8854e092b9b
fusion-github-review-resolution is a skill published in the GitHub repository equinor/fusion-skills (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 107 tokens to every session and 3,124 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
engram-branch-pr
PR creation workflow for Engram following the issue-first enforcement system. Trigger: When creating a pull request, opening a PR, or preparing changes for review.
verify-behavior
Verify or reproduce visible product behavior by driving the real UI with pi-computer-use's checked tools, requiring verified expect postconditions and durable state evidence for meaningful UI flows. Use when triage needs visual reproduction, implementation needs behavioral proof, review needs interactive confirmation…
github-contributor
End-to-end playbook for shipping high-quality pull requests to open-source projects you don't maintain — discovery, CONTRIBUTING compliance, PR-size check, minimal-diff implementation, PR description with AI-assisted disclosure, conflict resolution, and post-submission maintainer interaction. Use whenever creating…
revdiff
Review diffs, files, and documents with inline annotations in a TUI overlay, or answer questions about revdiff usage, configuration, themes, and keybindings. Opens revdiff in agterm/tmux/zellij/herdr/kitty/wezterm/cmux/ghostty/iterm2/emacs-vterm, captures annotations, and addresses them. Works in git, hg, and jj repos…
write-pr
Reference standards for writing pull request titles and descriptions in the tldraw repository, plus the pre-flight comment sweep over the diff. Use as supporting guidance when another skill or workflow needs PR content standards, not as the user-facing create/update PR workflow.