multi-agent-pr

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

2 scripts

Multi-agent PR and code review workflow for projects using multiple AI assistants (Claude, GitHub Copilot/Codex, Gemini Code Assist). Use when working with pull requests, code reviews, commits, or addressing review feedback. Teaches how to check all feedback sources (conversation, inline, reviews), respond to inline bot comments, create Fix Reports, and coordinate between agents that use different comment formats. Critical for ensuring no feedback is missed from external review bots.

1installs

Sourceaivokone/ak-skills-core

Added on2026-02-17

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add aivokone/ak-skills-core multi-agent-pr

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Multi-Agent PR & Code Review Workflow

Handle pull requests and code reviews in projects with multiple AI review assistants.

Requirements: GitHub repository with GitHub CLI (

gh

) installed and authenticated.

Key insight: Review bots (Gemini, Codex) don't read skills and post inline comments. This skill teaches implementers how to check ALL feedback sources and respond systematically.

Quick Commands

Note: Run scripts from repository root, not from

.claude/skills/

directory.

Check All Feedback (CRITICAL - Use First)

bash

.claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/check-pr-feedback.sh [PR_NUMBER]

Checks all three sources: conversation comments, inline comments, reviews.

If no PR number provided, detects current PR from branch.

Reply to Inline Comment

bash

.claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/reply-to-inline.sh <COMMENT_ID> "Your message"

Replies in-thread to inline bot comments. Uses

-F

flag (not

--raw-field

) which properly handles numeric ID conversion in

gh

CLI.

Must be run from repository root with an active PR branch.

Important: Always sign inline replies with your agent identity (e.g.,

—Claude Sonnet 4.5

—GPT-4

—Custom Agent

) to distinguish agent responses from human responses in the GitHub UI.

Commit Workflows

Quick Commit (No Approval)

Allowed when:

Not on
```
main
```
/
```
master
```
No
```
--force
```
needed
Changes clearly scoped

bash

git add -A
git commit -m "<type>: <outcome>"
git push  # if requested

Types:

feat

fix

refactor

docs

chore

test

Safe Commit (With Inspection)

Required for

main

master

or ambiguous changes:

Inspect:

git status --porcelain && git diff --stat

Wait for approval if ambiguous
Stage selectively:
```
git add -A
```
or
```
git add -p <files>
```
Commit:
```
git commit -m "<type>: <outcome>"
```
Push (never
```
--force
```
)
Report: branch, commit hash, pushed (yes/no)

Self-Check Before Commit

Before committing, verify:

Test changes - If modifying working code based on suggestions, test first
Check latest feedback - Run feedback check script to catch new comments
User confirmation - If user is active in session, ask before committing
Verify claims - If Fix Report says "verified:", actually verify

Example check:

bash

# 1. Test changes (run project-specific tests)
npm test  # or: pytest, go test, etc.

# 2. Check for new feedback since last check
.claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/check-pr-feedback.sh
# (prevents "ready to merge" when new comments exist)

# 3. If user active: "Ready to commit these changes?"

PR Creation

Set Up Template (Once)

Create

.github/pull_request_template.md

markdown

## Summary
-

## How to test
-

## Notes
- Agent review loop: PR Conversation comments only (for agent-reviewers). External bots may use inline comments. See workflow docs.

Or copy from

assets/pr_template.md

Create PR

Fill Summary, How to test, and Notes sections.

Code Review Coordination

Agent Roles

Agent Type	Posts Where	Format
Agent-reviewers (Claude, GPT-4, custom)	Conversation	Top-level comments
External review bots (Gemini, Codex)	Inline	File/line threads
Human reviewers	Mixed	Conversation or inline

Critical Rule: Check ALL Three Sources

bash

.claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/check-pr-feedback.sh

Why: External bots post inline comments even though agent-reviewers use conversation. Missing any source = missing feedback.

Three sources:

Conversation comments - Agent-reviewers post here
Inline comments - Gemini, Codex, security bots post here
Reviews - State + optional body

Responding to Inline Bot Comments

Address the feedback in code
Reply inline to each comment (sign with agent identity):

bash

.claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/reply-to-inline.sh <COMMENT_ID> "Fixed @ abc123. [details] —[Your Agent Name]"

Include in Fix Report (conversation comment) — the Fix Report summarizes all changes, but inline replies ensure each bot comment gets a direct acknowledgment

Fix Reporting

After addressing feedback, post ONE conversation comment:

markdown

### Fix Report

- [file.ext:L10 Symbol]: FIXED @ abc123 — verified: `npm test` passes
- [file.ext:L42 fn]: WONTFIX — reason: intentional per AGENTS.md
- [file.ext:L100 class]: DEFERRED — tracking: #123
- [file.ext:L200 method]: QUESTION — Should this handle X?

@reviewer-username please re-review.

Fix Statuses

Status	Required Info
FIXED	Commit hash + verification command/result
WONTFIX	Reason (cite docs if applicable)
DEFERRED	Issue/ticket link
QUESTION	Specific question to unblock

See
references/fix-report-examples.md
for real-world examples.

Use

assets/fix-report-template.md

as starting point.

Review Format (For Agent-Reviewers)

Agent-reviewers MUST post ONE top-level conversation comment:

markdown

### Review - Actionable Findings

**Blocking**
- path/file.ext:L10-L15 (Symbol): Issue → Fix → Verify: `command`

**Optional**
- path/file.ext:L100 (class): Improvement → Fix

Rules:

Blocking MUST include verification (runnable command or objective check)
Use
```
file:line
```
+ symbol anchor
Actionable, not prose
Group by severity

Do NOT:

Create inline file/line comments
Submit GitHub review submissions
Post multiple separate comments

Why: Inline comments harder to retrieve. Conversation comments deterministic.

Re-Review Loop

After Fix Report:

Request re-review:

@reviewer please re-review. See Fix Report.

Tag ALL reviewers who provided feedback
If QUESTION items: Wait for clarification
If blocking feedback was only provided inline: Mention it was addressed, optionally ask to mirror to conversation for future determinism

Multi-Agent Patterns

Duplicate Feedback

If multiple agents flag same issue:

markdown

- [file.php:L42 (ALL flagged)]: FIXED @ abc123 — verified: `npm test` passes
  - Gemini: "use const"
  - Codex: "prefer immutable"
  - Claude: "const prevents reassignment"

Conflicting Suggestions

markdown

- [file.php:L100]: QUESTION — Gemini suggests pattern A, Codex suggests pattern B. Which aligns with project conventions? See AGENTS.md.

Finding Specific Bot Comments

bash

# Set REPO and PR for your context
REPO="owner/repo"  # or: gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner
PR=42               # or: gh pr view --json number -q .number

# Find Gemini comment about "JavaScript"
gh api repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR/comments \
  --jq '.[] | select(.user.login == "gemini-code-assist[bot]" and (.body | contains("JavaScript"))) | {id, line, path}'

Troubleshooting

"Can't find review comments" → Check all three sources. Use

.claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/check-pr-feedback.sh

, not just

gh pr view

"Bot posted inline, should I reply inline?" → Address in code, include in Fix Report, optionally reply inline with brief ack.

"Multiple agents flagged same issue" → Fix once, report once (note all sources), tag all reviewers.

"Conflicting suggestions" → Mark QUESTION, check project docs, cite specific suggestions.

"Script can't detect PR" → Run from repository root (not

.claude/skills/

). Must be on branch with open PR.

"Reply script fails with HTTP 422" → Use

-F in_reply_to=ID

not

--raw-field

. The

-F

flag works correctly with

gh

CLI for numeric IDs.

"Bot suggestion broke working code" → Always test suggestions before committing. Some bot suggestions may be incorrect or context-dependent.

"Committed before checking latest feedback" → Run feedback check script immediately before declaring PR "ready" or "complete."

Summary

Key principles:

Always check all three sources (conversation + inline + reviews)
Agent-reviewers use conversation only
External bots use inline (expected)
One Fix Report per round
Tag all reviewers explicitly

Most common mistake: ❌ Only checking conversation or

gh pr view

✅ Always run

.claude/skills/multi-agent-pr/scripts/check-pr-feedback.sh

multi-agent-pr

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Multi-Agent PR & Code Review Workflow

Quick Commands

Check All Feedback (CRITICAL - Use First)

Reply to Inline Comment

Commit Workflows

Quick Commit (No Approval)

Safe Commit (With Inspection)

Self-Check Before Commit

PR Creation

Set Up Template (Once)

Create PR

Code Review Coordination

Agent Roles

Critical Rule: Check ALL Three Sources

Responding to Inline Bot Comments

Fix Reporting

Fix Statuses

Review Format (For Agent-Reviewers)

Re-Review Loop

Multi-Agent Patterns

Duplicate Feedback

Conflicting Suggestions

Finding Specific Bot Comments

Troubleshooting

Summary