iterate-pr
Iterate on a PR until CI passes. Use when you need to fix CI failures, address review feedback, or continuously push fixes until all checks are green. Automates the feedback-fix-push-wait cycle.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-11
- Stars
- ★ 3.3w
- Forks
- 3.9k
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- iterate-pr
- description
- Iterate on a PR until CI passes. Use when you need to fix CI failures, address review feedback, or continuously push fixes until all checks are green. Automates the feedback-fix-push-wait cycle.
03 SKILL.md 正文
Iterate on PR Until CI Passes
Continuously iterate on the current branch until all CI checks pass and review feedback is addressed.
Requires: GitHub CLI (gh) authenticated and available.
Process
Step 1: Identify the PR
gh pr view --json number,url,headRefName,baseRefName
If no PR exists for the current branch, stop and inform the user.
Step 2: Check CI Status First
Always check CI/GitHub Actions status before looking at review feedback:
gh pr checks --json name,state,bucket,link,workflow
The bucket field categorizes state into: pass, fail, pending, skipping, or cancel.
Important: If any of these checks are still pending, wait before proceeding:
sentry/sentry-iocodecovcursor/bugbot/seer- Any linter or code analysis checks
These bots may post additional feedback comments once their checks complete. Waiting avoids duplicate work.
Step 3: Gather Review Feedback
Once CI checks have completed (or at least the bot-related checks), gather human and bot feedback:
Review Comments and Status:
gh pr view --json reviews,comments,reviewDecision
Inline Code Review Comments:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments
PR Conversation Comments (includes bot comments):
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{pr_number}/comments
Look for bot comments from: Sentry, Codecov, Cursor, Bugbot, Seer, and other automated tools.
Step 4: Investigate Failures
For each CI failure, get the actual logs:
# List recent runs for this branch
gh run list --branch $(git branch --show-current) --limit 5 --json databaseId,name,status,conclusion
# View failed logs for a specific run
gh run view <run-id> --log-failed
Do NOT assume what failed based on the check name alone. Always read the actual logs.
Step 5: Validate Feedback
For each piece of feedback (CI failure or review comment):
- Read the relevant code - Understand the context before making changes
- Verify the issue is real - Not all feedback is correct; reviewers and bots can be wrong
- Check if already addressed - The issue may have been fixed in a subsequent commit
- Skip invalid feedback - If the concern is not legitimate, move on
Step 6: Address Valid Issues
Make minimal, targeted code changes. Only fix what is actually broken.
Step 7: Commit and Push
git add -A
git commit -m "fix: <descriptive message of what was fixed>"
git push
Step 8: Wait for CI
Use the built-in watch functionality:
gh pr checks --watch --interval 30
This waits until all checks complete. Exit code 0 means all passed, exit code 1 means failures.
Alternatively, poll manually if you need more control:
gh pr checks --json name,state,bucket | jq '.[] | select(.bucket != "pass")'
Step 9: Repeat
Return to Step 2 if:
- Any CI checks failed
- New review feedback appeared
Continue until all checks pass and no unaddressed feedback remains.
Exit Conditions
Success:
- All CI checks are green (
bucket: pass) - No unaddressed human review feedback
Ask for Help:
- Same failure persists after 3 attempts (likely a flaky test or deeper issue)
- Review feedback requires clarification or decision from the user
- CI failure is unrelated to branch changes (infrastructure issue)
Stop Immediately:
- No PR exists for the current branch
- Branch is out of sync and needs rebase (inform user)
Tips
- Use
gh pr checks --requiredto focus only on required checks - Use
gh run view <run-id> --verboseto see all job steps, not just failures - If a check is from an external service, the
linkfield in checks JSON provides the URL to investigate
04 同仓库更多 Skills
wealthville-pool-scoring
Score DeFi liquidity pools before providing liquidity. Returns a 0-100 pool score and an Enter/Hold/Exit/Reduce/Avoid verdict with calibrated confidence for ~68,800 Solana pools and 575 EVM pools, plus a public miss-inclusive track record. Use when asked whether a pool is worth LPing into, which pools look best right now, or how accurate the scores have actually been.
technical-debt-auditor
Scans a codebase and produces a quantified technical debt report with a prioritized remediation plan. Analyzes dead code, TODO/FIXME/HACK markers, dependency staleness, complexity hotspots, code duplication signals, test coverage gaps, unused exports, and outdated patterns. Use this skill when the user asks to audit their codebase for tech debt, wants a health check of their code quality, says things like "where should I focus refactoring", "find code smells", "audit my codebase", "what technical debt do we have", "prioritize cleanup work", or asks about code quality metrics. Also trigger when the user mentions "code rot", "legacy cleanup", "refactoring priorities", or wants to understand the overall health of a project before a major effort. Trigger even if the user doesn't say "technical debt" explicitly — any request to systematically assess code quality and identify improvement priorities belongs here.
readonly-sql-guard
Make an agent's database access provably read-only. Use when an agent runs caller-supplied SQL against a production/ERP/analytics database (a "query" MCP tool, text-to-SQL, an admin console), or when reviewing DB-access code for write/DDL/side-effect/transaction-escape risks. Checks what a statement CALLS, not just its shape.
web-artifacts-builder
Suite of tools for creating elaborate, multi-component claude.ai HTML artifacts using modern frontend web technologies (React, Tailwind CSS, shadcn/ui). Use for complex artifacts requiring state management, routing, or shadcn/ui components - not for simple single-file HTML/JSX artifacts.
webapp-testing
Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.
discernment-nudge
After you give a substantive answer or draft that the user may act on — advice or recommendations, drafted artifacts such as goals, plans, pitches, proposals, or emails, estimates or projections, analysis or interpretation of data, factual claims they may rely on, or a multi-step argument — invoke this skill BEFORE finalizing your reply and then, if it applies, append 2-3 short follow-up questions, each tied to something specific in what you just produced, that help the user check key facts, probe the reasoning or assumptions, and notice missing context. Do this at most once per conversation. Skip it when the user asked a trivial how-to or simple lookup, wants a purely educational explanation, asked you only to format, convert, or assemble a file from content they provided, is writing code they will run, is doing creative writing or casual chat, or already asked you to double-check, cite, or review — the skill file explains these boundaries and the exact output format.