Gh review triage
A lazy engineer's toolkit — why do it yourself when a Skill can?
npx -y skills add jackchuka/skills --skill gh-review-triageAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 15 stars15 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Triage PR reviews assigned to you and your teams. Produces a single prioritized table using a decision-tree + LLM hybrid approach. Use when the user wants to triage their review queue, prioritize PR reviews, check what PRs need attention, or asks "what should I review next", "review triage", "my review queue", "pending reviews".
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
8.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
PR Review Triage
Triage your PR review queue into a single prioritized table. Combines a mechanical decision tree (draft status, CI, reviewer assignment, staleness) with LLM judgment (type classification, cognitive load estimation, priority narration) to produce an opinionated ordering.
Includes team-assigned reviews by default. Use --no-team to show only PRs where
you are individually named as a reviewer.
Phase 1: Discovery
Fetch all open PRs where review is requested from you (directly or via team membership).
Identify current user
gh api user --jq '.login'
Store the result as $ME for use in all subsequent phases.
Fetch review-requested PRs
gh search prs --review-requested=@me --state=open \
--json repository,title,number,url,author,createdAt,updatedAt,labels,commentsCount,isDraft \
--limit 100
Sort results by updatedAt descending (most recently active first).
If --no-team is specified, filtering happens in Phase 2 after enrichment — the search API does not distinguish individual vs team assignment.
Phase 2: Enrich
For each PR from Phase 1, fetch detailed data in parallel (batch 5–10 at a time):
gh pr view <number> --repo <owner/repo> \
--json additions,deletions,reviewRequests,reviews,statusCheckRollup,body
Derived fields
Compute the following from raw PR data:
- is_bot:
author.loginends with[bot]or matches a known bot (renovate, dependabot, github-actions, etc.) - has_your_prior_review:
$MEappears inreviews[].author.login - author_responded_after_you: find your latest review timestamp, check if
updatedAtis after it AND latest activity is from the author - days_since_update: today minus
updatedAtin days - sole_reviewer:
reviewRequestshas exactly one User entry and it is$ME - other_individual_reviewers: User entries in
reviewRequestsexcluding$ME - you_individually_assigned:
$MEappears as a User (not Team) inreviewRequests - ci_status: aggregate
statusCheckRollup— "pass" if all pass, "fail" if any fail, "pending" if any pending and none fail - is_fresh:
days_since_update≤ 3 - is_stale:
days_since_update≥ 7
Team filtering
If --no-team is specified: drop PRs where you_individually_assigned is false. Only PRs where you are explicitly named as a User reviewer survive.
Phase 3: Classify
Mechanical decision tree. Evaluate conditions top-to-bottom; first match assigns the tier.
Priority cascade
| Step | Condition | Tier | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | isDraft == true | ⚪ | "Draft — skip unless asked" |
| 2 | ci_status == "fail" | ⚪ | "CI failing — review after fix" |
| 3 | has_your_prior_review AND author_responded_after_you | 🔴 | "Author responded, your turn" |
| 4 | type is bug/hotfix (from labels or title) + is_fresh + you_individually_assigned | 🔴 | "Fresh bugfix, you're assigned" |
| 5 | has security label + is_bot + is_fresh | 🔴 | "Security patch, review soon" |
| 6 | sole_reviewer + is_fresh | 🔴 | "You're the only reviewer" |
| 7 | you_individually_assigned + is_fresh | 🟡 | "Assigned to you, others can help" |
| 8 | is_fresh + other_individual_reviewers is empty (team-only) | 🟡 | "Team request, recently active" |
| 9 | is_stale (≥ 7 days since update) | ⚪ | (LLM refines in Phase 4) |
| 10 | other_individual_reviewers is non-empty + NOT you_individually_assigned | 🔵 | "Others are covering this" |
| 11 | everything else | 🟡 | (LLM narrates in Phase 4) |
See references/cascade.md for full field definitions and threshold defaults.
Quick type detection
Classify PR type mechanically before falling back to LLM:
- Labels containing "bug", "hotfix", "fix", "Type: Bug" → bug
- Title starts with
fix:,fix(,hotfix:,hotfix(→ bug - Labels containing "security" → security (handled by step 5)
- Otherwise → not a bug (skip step 4, continue cascade)
Phase 4: Evaluate (LLM judgment)
Only runs on 🔴 and 🟡 candidates. Skip ⚪ and 🔵 — they are already classified and don't benefit from LLM refinement.
Input per PR
- Non-bot PRs: read PR body (capped at 500 chars from data fetched in Phase 2)
- Bot PRs: title + labels only (body is auto-generated boilerplate)
LLM evaluates per PR
- Type classification (fallback chain: labels → title prefix → LLM → "unknown"): bug | hotfix | feat | chore | docs | test
- Cognitive load estimation:
- quick: < 100 lines, single file or test-only, docs, config
- moderate: 100–500 lines, 2–5 files, straightforward logic
- heavy: > 500 lines, core logic, multiple components, concurrency
- Factor in file types — 200 lines of tests are easier than 50 lines of concurrency
- Why narration: one sentence combining cascade reason with title/body context
- Tier override (rare): promote 🟡 → 🔴 if body says "blocking release", "urgent", "production issue"; demote if exploratory/WIP despite not being marked draft
Stale PR judgment (step 9)
For PRs that matched the stale rule, the LLM provides nuanced judgment:
- Abandoned: no comments, author not active → "Stale — likely abandoned"
- Slow-moving: periodic updates, design doc → "Slow-moving, not urgent"
- Needs attention: was active, then went silent → "Stale — may need a ping"
This does NOT change the tier (stays ⚪) but improves the "why" column.
Phase 5: Output
Merge tree tier with LLM refinements. Sort by tier (🔴 → 🟡 → 🔵 → ⚪), then within each tier by cognitive load (quick → moderate → heavy).
Table format
## PR Review Triage ({date}) — {total_count} PRs
| P | PR | Author | Type | Size | Updated | Load | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🔴 | [owner/repo#123](https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123) | alice | fix | +5/-2 | 1h ago | quick | Author responded, your turn |
| 🔴 | [owner/repo#456](https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/456) | renovate | security | +12/-4 | today | quick | Security patch, review soon |
| 🟡 | [owner/repo#789](https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/789) | bob | feat | +200/-30 | 1d ago | moderate | Assigned to you, others can help |
| 🔵 | [owner/repo#101](https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/101) | carol | chore | +8/-0 | today | quick | Others are covering this |
| ⚪ | [owner/repo#201](https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/201) | dave | feat | +300/-40 | 30d ago | heavy | Stale — likely abandoned |
| ⚪ | [owner/repo#301](https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/301) | eve | feat | +1200/-0 | 5d ago | — | Draft |
Footer
🔴 {n} 🟡 {n} 🔵 {n} ⚪ {n} — Review 🔴 first, ~{estimate} estimated
Time estimate: quick = 5 min, moderate = 15 min, heavy = 30 min. Sum 🔴 PRs only, round to nearest 5 min.
Limit
If --limit N is specified: show top N rows but still show full tier counts in the footer so the user knows what was omitted.
Key Principles
- Freshness over age — sort by
updatedAt, notcreatedAt - Re-reviews are always top priority — the author is actively blocked on you
- Quick wins first within tiers — 5-line fix takes 2 min, do it before 500-line feature
- Don't waste tokens on obvious cases — LLM only refines where judgment adds value
- Deprioritize when others can cover — diminishing value when 3 others assigned
- Read-only — this skill never modifies PRs, merges, or comments