Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to wordbricks/onequery. 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/wordbricks/onequery/main/.agents/skills/babysit-pr/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wordbricks/onequeryWrote 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/wordbricks/onequery/babysit-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wordbricks/onequery/babysit-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wordbricks/onequery/babysit-pr/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/wordbricks/onequery/babysit-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wordbricks/onequery/babysit-pr.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 | $0.00114 | $0.02938 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00046 | $0.01175 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00588 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00294 |
Grade A, and why
babysit-pr 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 5d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- babysit-pr — 98% identical, 10 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 188 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Babysitter
Objective
Babysit a PR persistently until one of these terminal outcomes occurs:
- The PR is merged or closed.
- A situation requires user help (for example CI infrastructure issues, repeated flaky failures after retry budget is exhausted, permission problems, or ambiguity that cannot be resolved safely).
- Optional handoff milestone: the PR is currently green + mergeable + review-clean. Treat this as a progress state, not a watcher stop, so late-arriving review comments are still surfaced promptly while the PR remains open.
Do not stop merely because a single snapshot returns idle while checks are still pending.
Inputs
Accept any of the following:
- No PR argument: infer the PR from the current branch (
--pr auto) - PR number
- PR URL
Core Workflow
- When the user asks to "monitor"/"watch"/"babysit" a PR, start with the watcher's continuous mode (
--watch) unless you are intentionally doing a one-shot diagnostic snapshot. - Run the watcher script to snapshot PR/review/CI state (or consume each streamed snapshot from
--watch). - Inspect the
actionslist in the JSON response. - If
diagnose_ci_failureis present, inspect failed run logs and classify the failure. - If the failure is likely caused by the current branch, patch code locally, commit, and push.
- If
process_review_commentis present, inspect surfaced review items and decide whether to address them. - If a review item is actionable and correct, patch code locally, commit, push, and then mark the associated review thread/comment as resolved once the fix is on GitHub.
- If a review item from another author is non-actionable, already addressed, or not valid, post one reply on the comment/thread explaining that decision (for example answering the question or explaining why no change is needed). Prefix the GitHub reply body with
[codex]so it is clear the response is automated. If the watcher later surfaces your own reply, treat that self-authored item as already handled and do not reply again. - If the failure is likely flaky/unrelated and
retry_failed_checksis present, rerun failed jobs with--retry-failed-now. - If both actionable review feedback and
retry_failed_checksare present, prioritize review feedback first; a new commit will retrigger CI, so avoid rerunning flaky checks on the old SHA unless you intentionally defer the review change. - On every loop, look for newly surfaced review feedback before acting on CI failures or mergeability state, then verify mergeability / merge-conflict status (for example via
gh pr view) alongside CI. - After any push or rerun action, immediately return to step 1 and continue polling on the updated SHA/state.
- If you had been using
--watchbefore pausing to patch/commit/push, relaunch--watchyourself in the same turn immediately after the push (do not wait for the user to re-invoke the skill). - Repeat polling until
stop_pr_closedappears or a user-help-required blocker is reached. A green + review-clean + mergeable PR is a progress milestone, not a reason to stop the watcher while the PR is still open. - Maintain terminal/session ownership: while babysitting is active, keep consuming watcher output in the same turn; do not leave a detached
--watchprocess running and then end the turn as if monitoring were complete.
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 188 lines · 114 tokens per session scan A 8cd26c09d1de
babysit-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository wordbricks/onequery (17 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 114 tokens to every session and 2,938 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-25.
Other skills, from other repositories
git
Git and code hosting platform management — GitHub, GitLab, Codeberg, Forgejo. Zero barrier — install x-cmd and manage repos from the terminal. Use for "git", "github", "gitlab", "repo", "pull request", "code hosting".
doris-repo-review
Review an Apache Doris PR from a local clone with the same multi-agent, shared-ledger convergence workflow as the CI Code Review Runner. Use when the user supplies a PR to /doris-repo-review, asks to review a Doris PR locally, or asks for the CI-style review flow. Safely align only the current worktree to the exact PR…
qodo-pr-resolver
Review and resolve PR issues with Qodo - get AI-powered code review issues and fix them interactively (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps).
code-review
Systematic code review SOP covering correctness, security, performance, and maintainability — plus GitHub PR review workflow (diff, inline comments, approve via gh/REST).
github-pr
Analyze pull request context and highlight merge risks from diffs and comments.
review
Self-review code before pushing. Use when the user wants to check their changes, asks 'anything I missed', says 'ready to push', or wants a pre-PR sanity check.