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 tommyvo/useful-prompts --skill address-pr-commentsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tommyvo/useful-promptsWrote 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/tommyvo/useful-prompts/address-pr-comments)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tommyvo/useful-prompts/address-pr-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tommyvo/useful-prompts/address-pr-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/tommyvo/useful-prompts/address-pr-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tommyvo/useful-prompts/address-pr-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 | $0.00073 | $0.00904 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00452 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00181 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
address-pr-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 10d 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 — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Address PR Comments
Step 1: Identify the PR
- If a PR number/URL is given, use it. Otherwise resolve the current branch's PR:
gh pr view --json number,title,url
Step 2: Fetch unresolved review threads
The REST API (gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments) does not expose resolution
state — use the GraphQL API instead:
gh api graphql -f query='
query {
repository(owner: "<owner>", name: "<repo>") {
pullRequest(number: <number>) {
reviewThreads(first: 100) {
nodes {
id
isResolved
path
line
comments(first: 20) {
nodes { id databaseId author { login } body path diffHunk }
}
}
}
}
}
}
'
Filter to isResolved: false nodes. Each thread's id (e.g. PRRT_...) is needed to resolve it
later; each comment's databaseId is needed to reply to it. If there are many threads, save the
JSON to a temp file and read it rather than parsing inline.
Step 3: Address each unresolved thread
For every unresolved thread, read the file/line referenced and understand the reviewer's concern before touching anything — some bots (e.g. optibot) restate stale line numbers after later commits shift the diff, so verify against the current file contents, not just the diff hunk.
Then decide, per thread:
- Fix it — the concern is valid and in-scope. Make the minimal code change that addresses it. Update/add specs covering the change. Prefer matching existing patterns in the surrounding code over inventing new ones.
- Comment instead — the concern is a false positive, out of scope, a deliberate tradeoff, or you disagree. Draft a short reply explaining why, but do not post it yet — see Step 5.
Don't batch unrelated fixes into one giant diff-reading pass; address threads one at a time so each fix can be tied back to its thread.
Step 4: Verify fixes
Before resolving anything, run the affected tests and linter for changed files (see the repo's own conventions for the exact test/lint commands, or the project's standard test runner otherwise). Fix any failures before proceeding.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 108 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A 844fa8c7b90a
address-pr-comments is a skill published in the GitHub repository tommyvo/useful-prompts (3 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed Unlicense. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 904 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.