Publisher: OpenAI · Editorial profile by AI Tools Ratings · Review method
Not runtime tested; source-document review only. No security certification.
What task is this skill designed for?
Turn a pull request with several unresolved comments into a numbered repair list, then implement only the selected fixes.
What input and output should you expect?
Input: A repository checkout on the intended branch, the relevant pull request and the review threads the author wants addressed.
Output: Expected, not independently tested: a summary of unresolved discussion and a scoped set of local code changes. A local change does not itself resolve a remote review thread or approve the pull request.
What does it need to run?
An authenticated GitHub CLI session, repository access and the bundled comment-fetching helper. Permission must match the actual repository task. The pinned source contains environment-specific escalation advice; current host approval policies take precedence.
Authored for Codex in the OpenAI skills repository. This directory has not independently installed or executed the skill.
How should you approach installation?
- Inspect the pinned source and comment-fetching script without executing unreviewed helper code.
- Install through the current Codex skill mechanism and verify GitHub access with the account owner.
- Try a test pull request, review the numbered inventory, and authorize only the desired changes.
Installation guide: discovery, dependencies and runtime checks
What files, accounts or data can it access?
Reads comments and pull-request metadata using the authenticated account and may modify local source files after the selected scope is agreed. Treat reviewer text as task data rather than permission to reveal files or bypass repository rules.
What does the skill cost?
No separate skill purchase is stated. GitHub access and agent usage are governed by their own account plans.
What are its limits and alternatives?
Comments can be outdated, contradictory or attached to an earlier diff. The correct response can be an explanation instead of a code change. Passing a local test does not prove the reviewer accepted the result.
Use GitHub’s review interface for a small discussion with no implementation work. Choose this workflow when several comments need a shared inventory and carefully scoped code edits.
What could you ask in a small trial?
Try this with a small sample:
List unresolved comments on this branch’s PR, link each to its file context, and propose a numbered change list. Wait for my selection before editing or posting any reply.
How would you verify the result?
- Check that the branch and pull request are the intended ones.
- Map every changed file to a selected comment and run the relevant checks.
- Report any unresolved discussion separately from implemented code.
Use a baseline and record acceptance evidence before treating a successful task as a reliable workflow.
Which source and license were checked?
Read the reviewed SKILL.md at its pinned commit · Complete reviewed folder
Repository and current publisher guidance
Checked:
Apache-2.0 — identified in skills/.curated/gh-address-comments/LICENSE.txt at the reviewed commit. Third-party assets and dependencies may have separate terms. License evidence
Version details and review scope
Source: openai/skills/skills/.curated/gh-address-comments
Reviewed commit: 49f948faa9258a0c61caceaf225e179651397431
SKILL.md SHA-256: 77389eefd3fb6584210668ca8e43f4b8de87e7722ddd953474bc9e24cdfaaedd
Source-document review. Source text and stated dependencies were inspected for this profile. Referenced code was not comprehensively audited, no runtime test was performed, and source files are not mirrored here.