Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/plugin install kc-pr-flowWrote 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/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/kc-pr-review-resolve)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/kc-pr-review-resolve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/kc-pr-review-resolve/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/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/kc-pr-review-resolve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/kc-pr-review-resolve.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 | $0.00032 | $0.08417 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.03367 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.01683 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00842 |
Grade A, and why
kc-pr-review-resolve 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 1mo 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 — 609 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
All text output follows unified language preference. See plugin CLAUDE.md for query flow.
REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:receiving-code-review for evaluation mindset — verify before implementing, push back on incorrect suggestions, no performative agreement. This skill handles mechanics; that skill governs judgment.
Configuration
This skill respects pr_review_resolve.auto_confirm in the adopter's workflow config (project CLAUDE.md or workflow README):
| Value | Behavior |
|---|---|
off (default) |
Always wait for user confirmation at Step 4 GATE (current behavior, no change for adopters who don't set the flag) |
reply_only |
Skip confirmation gate when ALL conditions hold: (a) every inline issue verdict ∈ {False Positive, Pre-existing, Informational}, (b) every PR-level review action is reply-only (no Fix:), (c) total reply count ≤ 10. See Step 4.5: Auto-Confirm Check for full logic. |
preapproved |
Skip confirmation gate only when the user explicitly directs autonomous resolution in the current request (for example, "fix all review issues" / "address every valid review comment"). Validation still runs first; invalid or risky feedback is replied to with evidence, not blindly fixed. |
Rationale: reply_only mode addresses the daily-pain segment "captain must confirm action plan even when all findings are nits/FP" without granting the skill authority to push controversial fixes. Any issue requiring code change still gates on captain confirmation.
Future extension (separate entity): trivial_fix mode for single-line typo / null-check / unused-import auto-fixes. Out of scope for this revision.
Process Flow
digraph resolve_pr {
rankdir=TB;
node [shape=box];
detect [label="Detect PR\n(from args or current branch)"];
fetch [label="Fetch unresolved threads\n+ PR-level reviews\n+ reviewer metadata"];
validate [label="Dispatch review agents\nto validate each thread"];
dedup [label="Cross-AI dedup\ngroup by (file, conceptual issue)"];
verdict_dedup [label="Cross-review verdict dedup\n(suppress prior-dismissed\nunless file changed)"];
triage [label="Triage & classify threads\n(AI reviewer annotations)"];
report [label="Report findings to user"];
node [shape=diamond];
auto_confirm_check [label="Step 4.5:\nauto_confirm config?\n(reply_only: skip-fix if\nconditions met;\npreapproved: fix if\ndirective given)"];
confirm [label="User confirms\naction plan?"];
node [shape=box];
fix [label="Fix valid issues\n(one commit per fix)"];
push [label="Push changes"];
reply [label="Reply to ALL threads\non PR"];
resolve_threads [label="Resolve fixed threads"];
rereview [label="Smart re-review\n(AI-aware tagging)"];
detect -> fetch -> validate -> dedup -> verdict_dedup -> triage -> report -> auto_confirm_check;
auto_confirm_check -> confirm [label="off / blocked"];
auto_confirm_check -> reply [label="reply_only\nauto-confirmed\n(skip fix)"];
auto_confirm_check -> fix [label="preapproved\nauto-confirmed\n(directive detected)"];
confirm -> fix [label="yes"];
confirm -> report [label="no, adjust"];
fix -> push -> reply -> resolve_threads -> rereview;
reply -> resolve_threads;
node [shape=diamond];
has_ai [label="AI reviewer\nre-triggered?"];
node [shape=box];
offer_monitor [label="Offer to monitor\nAI response"];
monitor [label="Poll for new\nAI feedback"];
report_new [label="Report new feedback\n(loop back to triage)"];
learning [label="9: Learning\nskill + project\nknowledge capture"];
node [shape=doublecircle];
end_node [label="Done"];
rereview -> has_ai;
has_ai -> offer_monitor [label="yes"];
has_ai -> learning [label="no"];
offer_monitor -> monitor [label="user accepts"];
offer_monitor -> learning [label="user declines"];
monitor -> report_new [label="new feedback"];
monitor -> learning [label="timeout / no response"];
report_new -> triage [label="re-triage"];
learning -> end_node;
}
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 609 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 549966952e37
kc-pr-review-resolve is a skill published in the GitHub repository iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 8,417 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
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.
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.
review-delta
Review only changes since last commit using impact analysis. Token-efficient delta review with automatic blast-radius detection.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.
github-contributor
A step-by-step guide for contributing code, tests, documentation, or build changes to open-source projects you do not maintain. It explains how to prepare a pull request that follows the project’s rules and is easier for maintainers to review.
git-pr-workflows-git-workflow
Guide changes through code checks, testing, commits, and pull request preparation. Use when coordinating a complete Git workflow and verifying readiness for collaboration.