SkillAgentSearch skills...

pr-improver

Runs an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over the current branch's changes until a PR review comes back clean, scoped mechanically to the directories the branch touched. Reviews are performed by an installed PR-review skill (default: pr-review-toolkit's review-pr).

Install / Use

npx skills add trailofbits/skills --skill pr-improver

Installs into whichever agent you are using.

About this skill
📄

SKILL.md

Installable skill definition

Quality Score

93/100

Supported Platforms

Universal

Our assessment of pr-improver

pr-improver scores 93/100 on our quality scale, 404th of 3,044 Development & Engineering skills we index (top 14%).

Its SKILL.md is 7.4 KB long, well organised into 8 sections with 2 code examples: a thorough specification that gives an agent plenty to work with.

With 7,225 GitHub stars, it is one of the more widely adopted skills in the catalogue.

Substance
29/30
Structure
18/20
Description
15/15
Adoption
16/20
Freshness
15/15

Maintenance, license and trust

  • The repository was last updated 4 days ago, so pr-improver is actively maintained.
  • It is released under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license; check its terms before commercial use.
  • Its trust signals score 100/100, with no cautions. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.

pr-improver compared with similar skills

All 4 of these similar skills score higher than pr-improver; compare them before choosing.

SkillScoreStarsUpdatedFormat
pr-improver (this skill)by trailofbits937.2k4d agoSKILL.md
ai-job-searchby MadsLorentzen10044.2ktodayCLAUDE.md
claude-howtoby luongnv8910041.7k1d agoCLAUDE.md
algorithmic-artby anthropics100177.9k5d agoSKILL.md
pptxby anthropics100177.9k5d agoSKILL.md

Frequently asked questions

How do I install pr-improver?
Run npx skills add trailofbits/skills --skill pr-improver. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent.
Which AI agents does pr-improver work with?
It is written for Universal, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
Is pr-improver safe to use?
It is CC-BY-SA-4.0-licensed and scores 100/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
Is pr-improver still maintained?
The repository was last updated 4 days ago, so pr-improver is actively maintained.

name: pr-improver description: "Runs an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over the current branch's changes until a PR review comes back clean, scoped mechanically to the directories the branch touched. Reviews are performed by an installed PR-review skill (default: pr-review-toolkit's review-pr). Use to fix review findings on a branch before opening or updating a pull request ('clean up this branch', 'fix this PR until review passes', 'run review-and-fix on my changes'). NOT for a one-time review — run the PR-review skill directly." argument-hint: "[BASE_BRANCH] [--reviewer <skill-or-agent>] [--max-rounds N]" allowed-tools: Bash Glob Read TaskOutput TaskStop Workflow

PR Improver

Improve the current branch by running /code-improver:improve — a dynamic workflow that loops a PR reviewer and a fixer subagent over the branch's changes until a review reports zero critical/major findings. The loop, its ledger, and its guards live in the workflow; this skill derives the scope from the branch diff and relays the outcome.

Starting the loop

The user provided: $ARGUMENTS (if empty, take base branch and preferences from the conversation).

1. Resolve the branch and its change surface

  1. Repo root: git rev-parse --show-toplevel. Fail loudly outside a repository.
  2. Base: the argument if given, else the repository's default branch (git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD → its short name, falling back to main). Refuse to run when the current branch IS the base — there is no diff to improve.
  3. Changed files: git diff --name-only <base>...HEAD. If empty, say so and stop.
  4. Scope: the changed files' directories, widened — per-file globs are too tight (PR fixes legitimately add tests next to changed code). Map each changed file to its repo-relative directory glob <dir>/** (** at the repo root only if files at the root changed), then deduplicate and drop globs covered by another.

2. Resolve the loop script

The loop is the dynamic workflow workflows/improve.js in this plugin. Launch it by path: scriptPath takes a resolved absolute path, and the Workflow tool's name resolves built-in and project workflows, so a marketplace-installed one may not answer to code-improver:improve. Try in order, first hit wins — the home directories come before . so an installed copy beats a checkout of this marketplace:

  1. Bash: ls -d -- "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/improve.js"
  2. Bash: ls -d -- "${CODEX_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/improve.js" (if that variable is set instead)
  3. Bash: find ~/.claude ~/.codex . -maxdepth 7 -path '*/code-improver/workflows/improve.js' -print -quit 2>/dev/null

Use the path exactly as printed. Its plugin directory — the path with /workflows/improve.js removed — is pluginRoot. If all three come back empty, try {name: "code-improver:improve"} once; if that is unavailable too, stop and say the loop could not be located. Do not assemble a path by hand and do not improvise the loop.

3. Invoke the workflow

Run it with the Workflow tool, {scriptPath: "<the path from step 2>", args: {...}}:

{
  "target": "<repo root>",
  "reviewer": {
    "kind": "skill",
    "name": "pr-review-toolkit:review-pr",
    "notes": "Review the working tree's changes against <base> as a pull request: correctness, tests, error handling, and the review dimensions the skill prescribes."
  },
  "scope": ["<derived-dir-glob>/**"],
  "pluginRoot": "<the plugin directory from step 2>",
  "maxRounds": 5
}
  • reviewer — the default above requires the pr-review-toolkit plugin. When the user names a different PR reviewer (skill or agent), use it, with kind set accordingly.
  • maxRounds only if the user asked for a different cap.
  • pluginRoot lets the run find its metrics collector; omit the key only if step 2 fell through to the workflow name — the workflow then searches for itself.
  • finalize defaults are right for PRs: no version bump unless the branch sits inside a plugin, narration strip and docs pass on.
  • decision only on continuation (below).

The loop's baseline snapshot is the tree at loop start — its scope guard protects the branch's uncommitted work; the PR's own commits are what the reviewer reviews.

The workflow runs in the background and needs no babysitting: it reviews, fixes, re-reviews, checks scope after every fix round, and can only complete on a clean review. It never commits; all changes stay in the working tree.

If the Workflow tool is unavailable or denied, stop and say so. Do not improvise the loop inline with direct edits — the ledger, scope guard, and escalation guarantees live in the workflow, and an inline imitation has none of them.

If the result is halted: "reviewer-unavailable", relay it and stop. The reviewer is not installed in this session; tell the user which plugin provides it (the default needs pr-review-toolkit) and re-run after installing. Do not review the branch yourself.

Do not end your turn while the loop is running. The Workflow tool returns a task id immediately; the result comes later. In an interactive session the completion notification re-invokes you — wait for it. In a non-interactive run (scripted, CI, eval) there is no later turn: stopping abandons the loop mid-round, so after launching, poll the task (TaskOutput with the returned task id, or sleep-and-recheck) until it completes, then relay the result. A session that answers "the loop is running, I'll report later" has lost the run.

Relaying the result

The workflow returns a structured result. Report it honestly — the distinctions matter:

  • converged: true — the last action was a review with zero critical/major findings. Report rounds used, remaining minor findings (open_minor_count), and the artifact paths (ledger_path, metrics).
  • capped: true — the fix budget ran out and the FINAL review still found blocking issues. Say plainly: capped, NOT converged, and list open_blocking. Do not present this as success.
  • escalation — the loop detected it was not converging (recurring findings, non-decreasing counts, or a fix relocating a problem). Relay the escalation message and finding ids to the user: this needs a design decision, not more rounds.
  • halted — a guard fired (scope violation, unregistered new files, a dead or unavailable reviewer, or a finalize pass whose own edits failed the check that follows it). Relay the paths in violations/new_untracked_files, the sites in finalize_regressions, and the notes.
  • notes always travel with the result — surface them; they include loud warnings such as "a git repository was initialized".

Continuing after an escalation

The loop stops on escalation by design. When the user decides, start a fresh run with the same args plus:

{ "decision": "<the user's ruling, verbatim>" }

The new run reloads the on-disk ledger, so every finding, rejection, and verdict carries over — rounds restart, re-derivation does not.

To stop a running loop, stop the workflow task (TaskStop); the ledger on disk is current to the last round and a re-run resumes from it.

When NOT to use

  • One-time review: run the PR-review skill directly; the loop's value is iteration
  • A skill: use the skill-improver entry — it wires the right reviewer
  • Unpushed exploratory work: review-and-fix loops harden a diff; while the shape is fluid, manual iteration gives more control

Related Skills

View on GitHub
GitHub Stars7.2k
CategoryDevelopment
Updated4d ago
Forks615

Languages

Python

Trust signals

100/100

From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.

No cautions