sentry-pr-code-review
Resolves code quality issues flagged by Sentry's Seer bot in PR comments.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/sentry-pr-code-review && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/14604" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/sentry-pr-code-review && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/sentry-pr-code-review
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
Review a project's PRs to check for issues detected in code review by Seer Bug Prediction. Use when asked to review or fix issues identified by Sentry in PR comments, or to find recent PRs with Sentry feedback.Key capabilities
- →Fetch Seer comments from GitHub PRs.
- →Parse each comment to extract bug descriptions, severity, analysis, and suggested fixes.
- →Verify if the identified issue still exists in the current code.
- →Implement fixes using suggested solutions or custom approaches.
- →Summarize and report results, categorizing resolved and skipped issues.
How it works
The skill fetches Sentry bot comments from GitHub PRs, parses them for issue details, verifies the issues, implements fixes, and then summarizes the outcome.
Inputs & outputs
When to use sentry-pr-code-review
- →Fixing Sentry-flagged bugs
- →Addressing PR feedback
- →Automating code quality resolutions
About this skill
Sentry Code Review
Review and fix issues identified by Seer (by Sentry) in GitHub PR comments.
Invoke This Skill When
- User asks to "review Sentry comments" or "fix Sentry issues" on a PR
- User shares a PR URL/number and mentions Sentry or Seer feedback
- User asks to "address Sentry review" or "resolve Sentry findings"
- User wants to find PRs with unresolved Sentry comments
Prerequisites
ghCLI installed and authenticated- Repository has the Seer by Sentry GitHub App installed
Important: The comment format parsed below is based on Seer's current output. This is not an API contract and may change. Always verify the actual comment structure.
Phase 1: Fetch Seer Comments
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{PR_NUMBER}/comments --paginate \
--jq '.[] | select(.user.login == "seer-by-sentry[bot]") | {file: .path, line: .line, body: .body}'
The bot login is seer-by-sentry[bot] — not sentry[bot] or sentry-io[bot].
If no PR number is given, find recent PRs with Seer comments:
gh pr list --state open --json number,title --limit 20 | \
jq -r '.[].number' | while read pr; do
count=$(gh api "repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/$pr/comments" --paginate \
--jq '[.[] | select(.user.login == "seer-by-sentry[bot]")] | length')
[ "$count" -gt 0 ] && echo "PR #$pr: $count Seer comments"
done
Phase 2: Parse Each Comment
Extract from the markdown body:
- Bug description: Line starting with
**Bug:** - Severity/Confidence: In
<sub>Severity: X | Confidence: X.XX</sub> - Analysis: Inside
<summary>🔍 <b>Detailed Analysis</b></summary>block - Suggested Fix: Inside
<summary>💡 <b>Suggested Fix</b></summary>block - AI Prompt: Inside
<summary>🤖 <b>Prompt for AI Agent</b></summary>block
Phase 3: Verify & Fix
For each issue:
- Read the file at the specified line
- Confirm issue still exists in current code (not already fixed in a later commit)
- Review surrounding code to assess if it's an actual issue or false positive
- Implement fix (use suggested fix as starting point, or write your own)
- Consider edge cases and regression risk
Phase 4: Summarize and Report Results
## Seer Review: PR #[number]
### Resolved
| File:Line | Issue | Severity | Fix Applied |
|-----------|-------|----------|-------------|
| path:123 | desc | HIGH | what done |
### Skipped (false positive or already fixed)
| File:Line | Issue | Reason |
|-----------|-------|--------|
**Summary:** X resolved, Y skipped
Seer Review Triggers
| Trigger | When |
|---|---|
| PR set to "Ready for Review" | Automatic error prediction |
| Commit pushed while PR is ready | Re-runs prediction |
@sentry review comment | Manual trigger for full review + suggestions |
| Draft PR | Skipped — no review until marked ready |
Troubleshooting
| Issue | Solution |
|---|---|
| No Seer comments found | Verify the Seer GitHub App is installed on the repo |
| Bot name mismatch | The login is seer-by-sentry[bot], not sentry[bot] |
| Comments not appearing on new PRs | PR must be "Ready for Review" (not draft) |
gh api returns partial results | Ensure --paginate flag is included |
Common Issue Types
| Category | Examples |
|---|---|
| Type Safety | Missing null checks, unsafe type assertions |
| Error Handling | Swallowed errors, missing boundaries |
| Validation | Permissive inputs, missing sanitization |
| Config | Missing env vars, incorrect paths |
When not to use it
- →When the repository does not have the Seer by Sentry GitHub App installed.
- →When the user wants to find PRs without Sentry feedback.
- →When the comment format from Seer is not as expected.
Prerequisites
Limitations
- →The skill relies on the `gh` CLI for GitHub API interaction.
- →The skill's parsing of comments is based on Seer's current output format, which may change.
- →The skill requires the Seer by Sentry GitHub App to be installed on the repository.
How it compares
This workflow specifically targets and processes bug warnings from the Seer by Sentry bot, providing a structured approach to address automated code review feedback.
Compared to similar skills
sentry-pr-code-review side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| sentry-pr-code-review (this skill) | 0 | 2mo | Review | Intermediate |
| analyze-ci | 1 | 2mo | Review | Intermediate |
| moai-workflow-testing | 1 | 2mo | Review | Intermediate |
| python-testing-patterns | 77 | 2mo | Review | Intermediate |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
You might also like
analyze-ci
mlflow
Analyze failed GitHub Action jobs for a pull request.
moai-workflow-testing
modu-ai
Comprehensive development workflow specialist combining DDD testing, debugging, performance optimization, code review, PR review, and quality assurance into unified development workflows
python-testing-patterns
wshobson
Implement comprehensive testing strategies with pytest, fixtures, mocking, and test-driven development. Use when writing Python tests, setting up test suites, or implementing testing best practices.
error-handling-patterns
wshobson
Master error handling patterns across languages including exceptions, Result types, error propagation, and graceful degradation to build resilient applications. Use when implementing error handling, designing APIs, or improving application reliability.
codex-claude-loop
bear2u
Orchestrates a dual-AI engineering loop where Claude Code plans and implements, while Codex validates and reviews, with continuous feedback for optimal code quality
shellcheck-configuration
wshobson
Master ShellCheck static analysis configuration and usage for shell script quality. Use when setting up linting infrastructure, fixing code issues, or ensuring script portability.