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 tomzx/agents --skill handle-pr-reviewer-feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tomzx/agentsWrote 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/tomzx/agents/handle-pr-reviewer-feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tomzx/agents/handle-pr-reviewer-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/handle-pr-reviewer-feedback/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/tomzx/agents/handle-pr-reviewer-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/handle-pr-reviewer-feedback.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 | $0.00083 | $0.04104 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.01642 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00821 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00410 |
Grade A, and why
handle-pr-reviewer-feedback 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 22d 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 — 339 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Handle PR Reviewer Feedback
Reviews and responds to all reviewer comments on a GitHub pull request you authored, implementing valid feedback or explaining rejections with clear justification.
On user approval it commits and pushes changes; whether replies are posted to GitHub is decided by should-post-to-github (based on ~/.sdlc/config.yaml), otherwise replies are drafted without posting.
This skill owns the reviewer-feedback contract: the canonical analysis file per feedback item, the outcome vocabulary, and the two modes that triage-pr-feedback orchestrates.
triage-pr-feedback references this contract; it does not restate it.
Two modes:
- Analyze mode (
--analyze-only): enumerate unresolved feedback, analyze each item against the PR head, and write one analysis file per item. No code changes, no commits, no pushes, no GitHub writes. Idempotent: items whose analysis file already exists are skipped unless--reanalyzeis passed. This is the read-only mode a scheduledtriage-pr-feedbackrun drives. - Execute mode (default): analyze any items still missing a file, present the recommendations for the undecided ones, then apply
implement/decline/defer, commit and push approved changes, reply (gated byshould-post-to-github), and record the decision in each file. It also picks up items that already carry adecisionbut noexecuted_at(for example decisions recorded by the PR feedback dashboard) and runs them without re-prompting.
For the reviewer-side flow (verifying that a PR author addressed your review comments), use handle-pr-author-feedback instead.
The reviewer-feedback contract
This section is the single source of truth for the analysis artifact.
triage-pr-feedback and the discovery script depend on it and must not restate it.
Location and ids
One file per feedback item:
$HOME/.sdlc/{owner}/{repository}/pull-requests/{PR_NUMBER}/feedback/{feedback-id}.md
{feedback-id} is derived from the GitHub node and is stable across runs: comment-<databaseId> (review-thread comment), review-<databaseId> (change-request review body), conversation-<databaseId> (top-level conversation comment).
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.
- 22d ago Changed · +35 lines c8c680fba676
- 23d ago Changed · +24 lines 8745022d1fce
- 24d ago Changed e210e7295f9f
- 27d ago Changed · +1 lines 6f6599499e00
- 28d ago Changed · +160 lines · +44 tokens per session 2211d4939529
- 1mo ago Changed · +11 lines 41c1eb3bfaf3
- 1mo ago First seen · 108 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A eb70d415c8e9
handle-pr-reviewer-feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository tomzx/agents (13 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 4,104 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.
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.
hero-diff-highlight
A dark code editor reveals a red deletion then a green addition with a soft pulse. Function: PR / code-change explainer.
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.