Skip to content
Back to skills

Review Queue

ASecurity

Fan out isolated, one-per-PR reviews across your queue (own context + worktree per PR, no cross-pollution), then synthesize one report. Pulls the queue from a review inbox (zen) or gh; posts nothing without per-PR authorization.

  • 2 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 3 views
  • Added September 19, 2026
ai-agentsgit

Works with

  • mcp

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 19, 2026

npx -y skills add jamestexas/agents --skill review-queue --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Review Queue?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Review Queue
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/jamestexas-review-queue/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/jamestexas-review-queue)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: review-queue
description: Fan out isolated, one-per-PR reviews across your queue (own context + worktree per PR, no cross-pollution), then synthesize one report. Pulls the queue from a review inbox (zen) or gh; posts nothing without per-PR authorization.
---

# Review Queue — isolated per-PR reviews, fanned out and synthesized

The problem this solves: reviewing N peer PRs in one long session pollutes context — findings, file reads, and design intent from PR A bleed into PR B. This skill keeps each review in its **own sub-agent + own git worktree**, then consolidates. One command, N clean reviews, one report.

**Model:** the orchestrator (you, the main session) builds the worklist, dispatches one `pr-reviewer` sub-agent per PR, and synthesizes. The sub-agent carries the discipline (pr-review-kit) and `isolation: worktree`; the orchestrator never reviews a PR itself (that would re-pollute the main context).

## Arguments

A list of PR numbers/URLs to review (e.g. `42088 42090 39311`, or full `owner/repo#42090` refs). If empty, the skill builds the queue from your review inbox (Phase 0).

---

## Phase 0 — Build the worklist + catch up

1. **Get the queue** (first source that's available):
   - **zen** (if the `zen` MCP is connected): call `zen_inbox` — PRs awaiting *you* (configured authors + explicit review requests). This is the intended source.
   - **gh** fallback: `gh search prs --review-requested=@me --state=open --json number,title,repository` (and/or the repos you care about).
   - **args**: if the user passed PR refs, use those verbatim — skip discovery.
2. **Catch up via an observational memory layer** (optional — only if your harness provides one, e.g. a memory/timeline MCP) — for each PR you're about to review, a quick timeline / text search to surface *what changed and who reviewed since you last looked* (especially if it's a re-review). This is the "stay current" layer — query it, don't carry it. Skip silently if no such source is connected.
3. **Confirm the list with the user** before dispatching — show `repo#number — title` for each, note any that are drafts or already-approved, and let them prune. Don't fan out a dozen agents on an unconfirmed list.

---

## Phase 1 — Fan out (one isolated reviewer per PR)

Dispatch one **`pr-reviewer`** sub-agent per confirmed PR, **in parallel** (independent work, no shared state). Each `pr-reviewer` already declares `isolation: worktree` + read-only tools, so it gets its own repo copy and clean context.

In each dispatch prompt, give the agent exactly what it needs (it can't ask you):
- `OWNER`, `REPO`, `N` (PR number)
- the canonical remote name for fetching (`upstream` on a fork checkout, else `origin`)
- intent: **review-only — return a structured summary, post nothing**
- any design-doc pointer you have (path/URL), so it doesn't have to hunt blind

Label each agent by PR (e.g. `review:repo#1234`) so progress is legible. Sub-agents can't spawn sub-agents — that's fine; the worker is flat by design.

> Scale note: ~5 PRs fan out cleanly as parallel sub-agents. If you're ever past ~10–15, or you want the reviewers to adversarially cross-check each other before reporting, that's the **Workflow** tool's territory (codified orchestration, dozens of agents) — switch to it rather than hand-dispatching.

---

## Phase 2 — Synthesize

Collect each sub-agent's structured summary (verdict + falsifiable matrix + blockers/nits/questions). Then produce **one** consolidated report:

- **Per-PR line:** `repo#N — VERDICT — one-line why` (sortable: BLOCKED/CHANGES first, SHIP last).
- **Cross-PR themes:** anything that recurs (same nit across PRs, a shared dependency two PRs both touch, a design question that spans them). This is the value the orchestrator adds over reading N separate reports.
- **What needs *you*:** the short list of PRs where a human decision is required (a design call, an approve, a "reply to reviewer").

Verify before relaying: the sub-agents are competent but not infallible (misidentified targets, stale framing, phantom citations). For any **blocker** a sub-agent reports, spot-check its evidence command against the actual code before you present it as fact.

---

## Phase 3 — Post (only on explicit, per-PR authorization)

**Default posture: post nothing.** The report is local until the user says, per PR, "post the review on #N" or "approve #N." Posting is the one side-effect that's visible to others; never batch-post or infer authorization. When authorized, follow pr-review-kit Phase 8 (body-only review, inline threads, or atomic batch) and verify it landed.

---

## Hygiene

- The `pr-reviewer` worktrees auto-clean when the agent makes no changes — and a review makes none — so they shouldn't accumulate. Still, `git worktree list` periodically and prune anything stale.
- This skill orchestrates; the **pr-reviewer** agent and **pr-review-kit** skill carry the per-PR discipline. Keep the division: orchestrator builds the list + synthesizes; worker reviews one PR in isolation.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.