Babysit

---
name: babysit
description: Drive a PR to a clean review (Greptile 5/5, zero open threads) — ships if needed, keeps it mergeable against staging, triggers Greptile/Cursor Bugbot, fixes real findings, replies to and resolves every thread, and loops until clean
---

# Babysit PRs

Owns a PR end-to-end through review: ship it, wait for the automatic review round, and if it
isn't already clean, drive fix → reply → resolve → re-review cycles until Greptile reports 5/5
and there are zero open comment threads, keeping the branch mergeable against staging along the
way. Designed to be run under `/loop` (no fixed interval — let it self-pace on review latency)
so it survives across multiple wakeups in the same session.

## When to use

- The user says "babysit this PR", "keep working the reviews until it's clean", or similar
- As the natural follow-up to `/ship` when the user wants the review loop automated rather than
  manually re-triggering reviews and answering comments themselves

## Inputs

Needs a PR number. If none is given and there's no open PR for the current branch, run `/ship`
first (which includes the `origin/staging` sync check — see `.agents/skills/ship/SKILL.md`) to
create one.

## Definition of "clean"

Both must hold:
1. The latest Greptile summary comment reports **Confidence Score: 5/5**
2. `reviewThreads` (GraphQL, see below) has **zero threads with `isResolved: false`**

Do not stop early on "no new comments this round" alone — a thread can be open from an earlier
round. Always check both conditions freshly after every push.

## Loop

1. **Check current state** before doing anything, including whether the PR is still mergeable:
   ```bash
   gh pr view <n> --json mergeable
   gh pr view <n> --json comments -q '[.comments[] | select(.author.login=="greptile-apps")] | last | .body'
   gh api graphql -f query='
   query { repository(owner: "<owner>", name: "<repo>") { pullRequest(number: <n>) {
     reviewThreads(first: 50) { pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor } nodes { id isResolved path line
       comments(first: 5) { nodes { id databaseId author { login } body } } } } } } }'
   ```
   `[.comments[]] | last | .body`, not `... | .body | tail -1` — the latter pipes every matching
   comment's full multi-line body through the pipeline and keeps only the final *line* of that
   combined output (usually the "Reviews (n): Last reviewed commit..." footer), not the last
   *comment*, so it silently misses the actual "Confidence Score: X/5" line.
   `reviewThreads(first: 50)` is a single page — check `pageInfo.hasNextPage`. If `true`, don't
   stop yet: re-run the same query with `after: "<endCursor>"` and keep paging until
   `hasNextPage` is `false` before evaluating "clean." A PR with more than 50 threads is rare but
   stopping on a partial page would silently miss unresolved ones past the cutoff.
   If `mergeable` is `CONFLICTING`, fix that first (step 2). Otherwise, if Greptile is 5/5 and
   every thread across all pages has `isResolved: true`, stop — report the outcome (see
   "Reporting" below) and skip the rest of this list.

2. **If the PR has a merge conflict**, merge `origin/staging`, resolve the conflicts, run the
   usual pre-push checks, push, and go to step 8 to re-trigger review.

3. **If no review has run yet** (fresh PR, no Greptile/Cursor comments): they usually run
   automatically on PR open — confirm via `gh pr checks <n>` (look for `Cursor Bugbot` /
   `Greptile Review`) and wait for that first round before doing anything else.

4. **If a review round has landed and it isn't clean**: for every thread where
   `isResolved: false`, triage the finding on its own merits — this is the part that requires
   judgment, not a mechanical loop:
   - **Real bug**: fix it in the cleanest way available. Match the codebase's existing
     conventions for that kind of problem before inventing a new one (e.g. an SSRF-prone
     user-supplied-host fetch should use whatever `validateUrlWithDNS`/`secureFetchWithPinnedIP`
     pattern the rest of the codebase already uses for that exact situation — grep for a sibling
     integration solving the same problem first). Never patch around a finding with a
     workaround, a broad try/catch, or a suppression comment — fix the actual cause.
   - **False positive**: don't change code. Reply with the specific reason it doesn't apply
     (cite the type definition, the established pattern it matches, or the doc it follows) so
     the reviewer bot and a human skimming later both understand why it was left as-is.
   - **Already fixed by an earlier finding in the same round**: note that and resolve without a
     duplicate code change.

5. **Reply to every thread individually** before resolving it — never resolve silently:
   ```bash
   gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<n>/comments/<databaseId>/replies -f body="<what was done and why>"
   ```
   Then resolve via GraphQL (needs the thread `id` from step 1, not the comment id):
   ```bash
   gh api graphql -f query='mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "<threadId>"}) { thread { isResolved } } }'
   ```

6. **Before pushing, re-run the full sync check from `/ship` step 2** — not just the log command,
   the whole check-and-recover flow (stash WIP if needed, rebase, verify the rebase didn't just
   cleanly replay stray commits, cherry-pick rebuild if it did or if it conflicted). A babysit
   loop spanning a long session is exactly the scenario where a branch can drift, and pushing
   review fixes on top of undetected drift is how an oversized PR happens even after the branch
   was fixed once. Then run the repo's pre-ship checks the same way `/ship` does before
   committing — not just lint/typecheck/boundary-validation, but also the conditional `/cleanup`
   (if this round's fix touched UI code) and `/db-migrate` (if it touched schema/migrations)
   gates from `/ship` steps 4 and 5. A review-fix round is still a code change and can trip
   either gate just as easily as the original commit did.

7. **Commit and push** the round's fixes as one commit — `--force-with-lease` whenever step 6's
   sync check rewrote history, which includes a plain `git rebase origin/staging` that completed
   with no conflicts, not only the cherry-pick rebuild path; both rewrite commits already
   published to the remote, so a plain `git push` can be rejected either way — then run `/ship`
   step 9's post-push verify — not just before the first push, every push in the loop:
   ```bash
   git fetch origin staging && git log --oneline --reverse origin/staging..HEAD
   gh pr view <n> --json commits -q '.commits[].messageHeadline'
   ```
   `--reverse` makes `git log` oldest-first, matching the PR commit list's order — plain
   `git log` is newest-first, so without it a positional comparison can spuriously fail on any
   multi-commit branch.
   These two lists must describe the same commits. A review loop runs many pushes across many
   rounds; checking sync only before the push (step 6) and never after is how a bad push or a
   PR whose commit history quietly went stale between rounds goes unnoticed.

8. **Re-trigger review** by posting `@greptile` and `@cursor review` as **two separate PR
   comments** — never combine them into one comment, each bot only responds to its own mention:
   ```bash
   gh pr comment <n> --body "@greptile"
   gh pr comment <n> --body "@cursor review"
   ```

9. **Wait for the new round**, then go back to step 1. Pace the wait with `ScheduleWakeup` using
   a fallback delay of ~250–300s (Greptile/Cursor typically take 1–3 minutes) — never busy-poll
   in a sleep loop. Pass the same `/loop babysit PR <n>` prompt on each wakeup so the loop
   resumes correctly.

10. **Stop conditions**: clean state reached (see above), or the same unresolved finding or
    merge conflict survives two consecutive rounds with no new information (surface it to the
    user instead of looping forever), or the user interrupts.

## Reporting

When the loop ends, summarize: how many rounds it took, what was actually fixed (one line each),
what was pushed back on as a false positive and why, and the final Greptile score / thread count.

## Hard rules

- Never post the two re-review mentions as a single combined comment.
- Never resolve a thread without replying to it first.
- Never fix a finding with a hacky workaround — if the clean fix isn't obvious, find the sibling
  pattern elsewhere in the codebase solving the same class of problem and match it.
- Never silently drop a finding — every thread gets either a code fix or a reasoned reply.
- Always re-run the `/ship`-style sync check before every push in the loop, not just the first.