GitHub Review Requests

Overview

This public intake copy packages

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/gh-review-requests

https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

GitHub Review Requests Fetch unread review_requested notifications for open (unmerged) PRs, filtered by a GitHub team. Requires: GitHub CLI (gh) authenticated.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Fallback, Limitations.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• You need to find unread GitHub PR review requests for a specific team.
• You want to check which open PRs currently need your review or a teammate's review.
• You need a filtered review queue instead of manually browsing GitHub notifications.
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Fetch unread GitHub notifications for open PRs where review is requested from a specified team or opened by a team member. Use when asked to "find PRs I need to review", "show my review requests", "what needs my....
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
• Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.

Operating Table

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

SKILL.md

SKILL.md

## Related Skills

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. "review requested from: <Team Name>" — the team is a requested reviewer
2. "opened by: <login>" — the PR author is a team member

3. - Title - URL - Reason

4. 1 - feat(kafka): add workflow to restart a broker - https://github.com/getsentry/ops/pull/19144 - opened by: evanh
5. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
6. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
7. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Step 1: Identify the Team

If the user has not specified a team, ask:

Which GitHub team should I filter by? (e.g.

streaming-platform

)

Accept either a team slug (

streaming-platform

Imported: Step 2: Run the Script

uv run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_ROOT}/scripts/fetch_review_requests.py --org getsentry --teams <team-slug>

To filter by multiple teams, pass a comma-separated list:

uv run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_ROOT}/scripts/fetch_review_requests.py --org getsentry --teams <team slugs>

Script output

{
  "total": 3,
  "prs": [
    {
      "notification_id": "12345",
      "title": "feat(kafka): add workflow to restart a broker",
      "url": "https://github.com/getsentry/ops/pull/19144",
      "repo": "getsentry/ops",
      "pr_number": 19144,
      "author": "bmckerry",
      "reasons": ["opened by: bmckerry"]
    }
  ]
}

reasons

• "review requested from: <Team Name>"

  — the team is a requested reviewer

• "opened by: <login>"

  — the PR author is a team member

Imported: Step 3: Present Results

Display results as a markdown table with full URLs:

If

total

Imported: Fallback

If the script fails, run manually:

gh api notifications --paginate

Then for each

review_requested

• gh api repos/{repo}/pulls/{number}

  — skip if

  state == "closed"

  or

  merged_at

  is set

• gh api repos/{repo}/pulls/{number}/requested_reviewers

  — check

  teams[].name

• gh api orgs/{org}/teams/{slug}/members

  — check if author is a member

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @gh-review-requests-v2 to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @gh-review-requests-v2 against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @gh-review-requests-v2 for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @gh-review-requests-v2 using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
• Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
• Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
• Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/gh-review-requests

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated

SKILL.md

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @game-design-v2

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @gdb-cli-v2

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @gdpr-data-handling-v2

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

• @gemini-api-dev-v2

  - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

references

references/n/a

examples

examples/n/a

scripts

scripts/n/a

agents

agents/n/a

assets

assets/n/a

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.