Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to frostney/GocciaScript. 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/frostney/GocciaScript/main/.agents/skills/resolve-reviews/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/frostney/GocciaScriptWrote 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/frostney/gocciascript/resolve-reviews)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/frostney/gocciascript/resolve-reviews"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/frostney/gocciascript/resolve-reviews.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00045 | $0.02089 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01045 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00418 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00209 |
Grade A, and why
resolve-reviews 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to resolve-reviews — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 216 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Automatically resolve all review comments (both human and bot) on the current PR. Uses a two-phase workflow: fix all existing issues, then poll for new ones until quiet.
Prerequisites
All commands below use npx agent-reviews. If the project uses a different package manager, substitute the appropriate runner (e.g., pnpm dlx agent-reviews for pnpm, yarn dlx agent-reviews for Yarn, bunx agent-reviews for Bun). Honor the user's package manager preference throughout.
Cloud environments only (e.g., Codespaces, remote agents): verify git author identity so CI checks can map commits to the user. Run git config --global --get user.email and if empty or a placeholder, set it manually. Skip this check in local environments.
Phase 1: FETCH & FIX (synchronous)
Step 1: Fetch All Comments (Expanded)
Run npx agent-reviews --unanswered --expanded
The CLI auto-detects the current branch, finds the associated PR, and authenticates via gh CLI or environment variables. If anything fails (no token, no PR, CLI not installed), it exits with a clear error message.
This shows all unanswered comments (both human and bot) with full detail: complete comment body (no truncation), diff hunk (code context), and all replies. Each comment shows its ID in brackets (e.g., [12345678]).
If zero comments are returned, print "No unanswered comments found" and skip to Phase 2.
Step 3: Process Each Unanswered Comment
For each comment from the expanded output, apply the appropriate evaluation based on whether the author is a bot or a human.
For Bot Comments
Read the referenced code and determine:
- TRUE POSITIVE - A real bug that needs fixing
- FALSE POSITIVE - Not actually a bug (intentional behavior, bot misunderstanding)
- UNCERTAIN - Not sure; ask the user
Likely TRUE POSITIVE:
- Code obviously violates stated behavior
- Missing null checks on potentially undefined values
- Type mismatches or incorrect function signatures
- Logic errors in conditionals
- Missing error handling for documented failure cases
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 216 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 482b0321a14c
resolve-reviews is a skill published in the GitHub repository frostney/GocciaScript (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 2,089 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to resolve-reviews, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
git-step-commit
Analyze Git changes, split them into coherent commits, infer message language and format, optionally close supplied GitHub issues, and execute safely. Manage persistent global or repository preferences for review versus direct submission and automatic or specified commit-message language through native Git config.…
triage-contributor-pr
Triage open pull requests from external contributors to prisma/prisma and produce a per-PR verdict with evidence. Use when a maintainer asks to triage, evaluate, assess, or review the queue of incoming contributor PRs, to decide whether a fork PR is safe to run CI on, to check whether a PR is in scope for its version…
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.
review-triage-phase
Produces canonical review actions from fetched review state and renders action markdown. Use when the user wants only triage/action-planning for the review-framework workflow.
compiler-commit
Use when you want to verify compiler changes and commit with the correct convention. Runs tests, lint, and format, then commits with the [compiler] or [rust-compiler] prefix.
understand-pr
Guided interactive PR review — understand the history and context before forming opinions.