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 richkuo/rk-skills --skill fix-pr-review-loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/richkuo/rk-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/richkuo/rk-skills/fix-pr-review-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/richkuo/rk-skills/fix-pr-review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/richkuo/rk-skills/fix-pr-review-loop/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/richkuo/rk-skills/fix-pr-review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/richkuo/rk-skills/fix-pr-review-loop.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00132 | $0.02693 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00066 | $0.01347 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00539 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00269 |
Grade A, and why
fix-pr-review-loop 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 4d 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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
fix-pr-review-loop
Drive an open PR from "has review feedback" to "reviewed to convergence": resolve the latest review with fix-pr-review, wait for the bot's re-review, repeat. This skill owns the stop rules in step 3 and the terminal-state table in step 5. work-on-issue-loop runs steps 2 through 4 after it opens a PR and reuses step 5's table with its own deltas, so an edit to that table needs a matching edit in work-on-issue-loop step 4.
Input
Nothing (the current branch's PR via gh pr view), or #<N> / <N> / URL / owner/repo#N.
Steps
1. Resolve the PR and establish the starting state
gh pr view <N|--> --json number,headRefName,headRepositoryOwner,baseRefName,url,state,isDraft. A merged or closed PR: stop and report. Otherwise fetch existing feedback with fix-pr-review step 1's three-channel query (reviews, issue comments, inline threads).
- Unaddressed feedback present (newer than any prior disposition comment, or an unresolved inline thread): it is review 1. Set
review_count = 1, note its timestamp, go to step 3. Never post a redundant trigger. - No feedback yet (fresh PR, or only your own disposition or trigger comments): post the first-review trigger as its own one-line comment,
gh pr comment <N> --body "<trigger>". Record its timestamp, setreview_count = 1, go to step 2.
First-review trigger. validate-issue step 6 owns the first-review table with its Claude and Codex columns; this file states no boundary of its own. Read the score in this order and stop at the first hit: a stamped PR review: line in the linked issue's Execution block (it overrides the band), the [C<score>, …] bracket in the PR title, the [C<score>] prefix of the issue the PR closes. A missing score routes to the top row. Fable runs at high unless the user asks for xhigh or stamps it.
Map a stamped model before posting it. claude.yml resolves only opus, sonnet and fable: a stamped sonnet or haiku posts @claude sonnet review, opus posts @claude opus review effort:high, fable posts @claude fable review effort:high, each keeping a stamped effort:<tier> in place of high. An unadmitted shorthand becomes the Action's route keyword and can select the write-capable fix-pr job, which pushes commits. On Codex, sonnet/haiku map to @codex luna review and opus/fable to the bare @codex review; never carry a @claude shorthand across to @codex. Blocking re-reviews step down one rung per cycle, keyed to the reviewer that actually ran cycle 1; skills/fix-pr-review/rereview-routing.md owns that ladder and the Codex rule.
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.
- 4d ago Changed · -8 lines acc980203ea6
- 5d ago Changed 83db0178ae21
- 7d ago Changed · -43 lines · -66 tokens per session 93e7418e205c
- 11d ago First seen · 133 lines · 198 tokens per session scan A baf98db1eb47
fix-pr-review-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository richkuo/rk-skills (49 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 132 tokens to every session and 2,693 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-it
Code review closeout for Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, DeepSeek TUI, and Antigravity CLI: local dirty changes, branch vs main, parallel tests.
address-github-comments
Use when you need to address review or issue comments on an open GitHub Pull Request using the gh CLI.
criticism-self-criticism
A structured review method for examining completed work, criticism, and repeated mistakes. It focuses on specific evidence, causes, effects, and practical improvements.
comet-github-pr-review
A read-only review process for pull requests in Comet's GitHub repositories. A pull request is a proposed code change; the review checks its current code, related issue, comments, merge status, and automated checks.
flow-next-worktree-kit
Manage git worktrees (create/list/switch/cleanup) and copy .env files. Use for parallel feature work, isolated review, clean workspace, or when user mentions worktrees.
resolve-pr-comments
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using reasoning recalled from past Claude Code transcripts). Use when the user asks to "resolve PR comments", "fix review comments", "address PR…