By 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.
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.
Important: All scripts must be run from the repository root directory (where .git is located), not from the skill directory. Use the full path to the script via ${CLAUDE_SKILL_ROOT}.
Bundled Scripts
scripts/fetch_pr_checks.py
Fetches CI check status and extracts failure snippets from logs.
uv run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_ROOT}/scripts/fetch_pr_checks.py [--pr NUMBER]
Returns JSON:
{
"pr": {"number": 123, "branch": "feat/foo"},
"summary": {"total": 5, "passed": 3, "failed": 2, "pending": 0},
"checks": [
{"name": "tests", "status": "fail", "log_snippet": "...", "run_id": 123},
{"name": "lint", "status": "pass"}
]
}
scripts/fetch_pr_feedback.py
Fetches and categorizes PR review feedback using the LOGAF scale.
uv run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_ROOT}/scripts/fetch_pr_feedback.py [--pr NUMBER]
Returns JSON with feedback categorized as:
high- Must address before merge (h:, blocker, changes requested)medium- Should address (m:, standard feedback)low- Optional (l:, nit, style, suggestion)bot- Informational automated comments (Codecov, Dependabot, etc.)resolved- Already resolved threads
Review bot feedback (from Sentry, Warden, Cursor, Bugbot, CodeQL, etc.) appears in high/medium/low with review_bot: true — it is NOT placed in the bot bucket.
Workflow
1. Identify PR
gh pr view --json number,url,headRefName
Stop if no PR exists for the current branch.
2. Check CI Status
Run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_ROOT}/scripts/fetch_pr_checks.py to get structured failure data.
Wait if pending: If review bot checks (sentry, warden, cursor, bugbot, seer, codeql) are still running, wait before proceeding—they post actionable feedback that must be evaluated. Informational bots (codecov) are not worth waiting for.
3. Fix CI Failures
For each failure in the script output:
- Read the
log_snippetto understand the failure - Read the relevant code before making changes
- Fix the issue with minimal, targeted changes
Do NOT assume what failed based on check name alone—always read the logs.
4. Gather Review Feedback
Run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_ROOT}/scripts/fetch_pr_feedback.py to get categorized feedback.
5. Handle Feedback by LOGAF Priority
Auto-fix (no prompt):
high- must address (blockers, security, changes requested)medium- should address (standard feedback)
This includes review bot feedback (items with review_bot: true). Treat it the same as human feedback:
- Real issue found → fix it
- False positive → skip, but explain why in a brief comment
- Never silently ignore review bot feedback — always verify the finding
Prompt user for selection:
low- present numbered list and ask which to address:
Found 3 low-priority suggestions:
1. [l] "Consider renaming this variable" - @reviewer in api.py:42
2. [nit] "Could use a list comprehension" - @reviewer in utils.py:18
3. [style] "Add a docstring" - @reviewer in models.py:55
Which would you like to address? (e.g., "1,3" or "all" or "none")
Skip silently:
resolvedthreadsbotcomments (informational only — Codecov, Dependabot, etc.)
6. Commit and Push
git add <files>
git commit -m "fix: <descriptive message>"
git push
7. Wait for CI
gh pr checks --watch --interval 30
8. Repeat
Return to step 2 if CI failed or new feedback appeared.
Exit Conditions
Success: All checks pass, no unaddressed high/medium feedback (including review bot findings), user has decided on low-priority items.
Ask for help: Same failure after 3 attempts, feedback needs clarification, infrastructure issues.
Stop: No PR exists, branch needs rebase.
Fallback
If scripts fail, use gh CLI directly:
gh pr checks --json name,state,bucket,linkgh run view <run-id> --log-failedgh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments