/github-address-review

Make it your own.

In Claude Code, use the slash command and add your context. In Codex, select github-address-review from the just-vibe skill picker, then send the same brief.

Version 0.11.0 also supports /jv github-address-review, /just-vibe github-address-review and /jv:github-address-review in Claude. See shortcut setup and context examples.

What the agent does

1. Map each comment to current code and accepted contracts, verify its premise and identify conflicting suggestions.
2. Implement coherent changes for the accepted comments and run the relevant checks.
3. Keep a per-comment disposition tied to the final diff.
4. All changes are owned by the user. Add no agent/model self-attribution, AI-generated signature, badge, or agent Co-authored-by trailer to commits, PRs, comments, release notes or messages. Use the existing user Git identity; preserve legitimate human attribution and required third-party notices.

Inputs

• PR and review threads plus accepted product constraints.

Optional context: scope, references, constraints, successCriteria, environment, mode, budget.

Scope

Reads

Implement actionable feedback locally; pushing, replying, and resolving threads follow explicit requested scope.

Writes

Apply: only the requested local changes and relevant isolated verification. Inspect/plan requests remain inspection/planning. External actions require their exact action and target in session authorization.

Mode

Apply; PR and review threads plus accepted product constraints.

Prerequisites

Exact owner/repository and relevant issue/PR/ref; authenticated read access through an available connector or CLI for remote evidence. External writes require the requested operation, appropriate account permissions, and rechecking target state. Local preparation remains useful without write access.

Expected output

• Patch with a comment-to-change mapping, verification evidence, and disputed, blocked or remote threads still requiring action.

How the work is checked

• A valid review bug is fixed; a suggestion contradicting the accepted API contract is explained rather than blindly applied.
• Review newly prepared commit/PR/message text, including template or hook additions, for agent self-attribution before submission; verify the resulting artifact when available. Do not silently rewrite existing history or remove human credits.

When to stop or clarify

• Do not claim remote threads resolved from a local fix. Ambiguous policy changes need clarification before dependent edits.

Handling missing context

Infer

Resolve owner/repository and PR/issue/ref from links, remotes and supplied artifacts; inspect available account and head identity.

Assume

Prepare local text or analyze supplied evidence if remote access is absent; label its freshness.

Ask

Ask only when repository/account/target ambiguity blocks the requested remote action; missing write access does not block local drafting.

Technical guidance

Evidence

Map each comment to its current code and the accepted requirement, including already changed or conflicting requests.

Method

Fix the demonstrated issue, preserve scope and track which comments are addressed by evidence versus need clarification.

Pitfall

A reviewer suggestion can be stale or introduce a regression; resolving a thread is a distinct remote action.

Check

Verify each accepted fix against the original trigger and re-read current review state before requested replies or resolution.

Situational decisions

When a suggested change contradicts verified behavior or another accepted request: Explain the conflict and seek that decision without applying incompatible edits.

The coding agent follows this workflow using its available tools. Installation does not grant service access or guarantee an outcome. Read the compatibility notes.

Keep exploring