Mpy Pr Maintenance

gh pr list --repo micropython/micropython --author @me --state open --json number,title,headRefName,createdAt,isDraft --limit 100

Sort by createdAt ascending (oldest first).

Initialize state file

Create or load ~/mpy/pr-maintenance-state.json:

{
  "last_updated": "ISO-8601 timestamp",
  "current_pr_index": 0,
  "prs": [
    {
      "number": 5323,
      "branch": "ordered_maps",
      "status": "pending",
      "notes": ""
    }
  ]
}

Valid statuses: pending, in_progress, completed, skipped, deferred, closed.

Update current_pr_index as PRs are processed. Save after each PR completes.

Phase 1: Reconnaissance

For each PR, run 5 parallel Bash calls to gather:

1. PR metadata -- title, body, labels, draft status, mergeable state:

   gh pr view <NUMBER> --repo micropython/micropython --json title,body,labels,isDraft,mergeable,baseRefName,headRefName,createdAt,updatedAt
   

2. Comments and reviews -- all discussion, review comments, inline review comments:

   gh pr view <NUMBER> --repo micropython/micropython --comments
   gh api /repos/micropython/micropython/pulls/<NUMBER>/comments
   gh api /repos/micropython/micropython/pulls/<NUMBER>/reviews
   

3. CI status -- check runs on the PR head:

   gh pr checks <NUMBER> --repo micropython/micropython
   

4. Branch state -- whether the branch exists locally, divergence from upstream/master:

   git fetch origin <BRANCH> 2>&1
   git log --oneline origin/<BRANCH>..upstream/master | head -20
   git log --oneline upstream/master..origin/<BRANCH>
   

5. Commit history -- commits on the PR branch:

   gh api /repos/micropython/micropython/pulls/<NUMBER>/commits --jq '.[].commit.message'
   

Identify unaddressed feedback

Filter comments and reviews to find feedback from external reviewers (not the PR author, not bots). Key maintainer accounts: dpgeorge, projectgus, jimmo, robert-hh.

Feedback is "unaddressed" if:

• It was posted after the last push to the PR branch
• It requests changes or asks questions
• No subsequent comment from the PR author responds to it

Phase 2: User Discussion

Present findings to the user:

1. PR title, age, and current state
2. Summary of unaddressed reviewer feedback (quote key comments)
3. Whether the PR is a draft
4. How far behind upstream/master it is
5. Proposed action: what changes are needed to address feedback

Wait for the user to choose one of:

• proceed -- continue to rebase and fix
• skip -- mark as skipped, move to next PR
• close -- close the PR via gh pr close <NUMBER> --repo micropython/micropython, mark as closed
• defer -- mark as deferred, move to next PR
• discuss -- talk through the feedback before deciding

For draft PRs, default recommendation is skip unless the user says otherwise.

Batch mode

If multiple PRs have no unaddressed reviewer feedback, present them as a batch and offer to launch all of them in parallel (up to 6 concurrent subprocesses). Still present each PR's summary so the user can exclude any.

Phase 3: Rebase and Fix

Set up worktree

git fetch origin <BRANCH>
git worktree add ~/mpy/<BRANCH> origin/<BRANCH>
cd ~/mpy/<BRANCH> && git checkout -b <BRANCH>
git remote add upstream https://github.com/micropython/micropython.git 2>/dev/null || true
git fetch upstream master

Install CI tooling and project context into the worktree:

ln -sf ~/CLAUDE_micropython.md ~/mpy/<BRANCH>/CLAUDE.md
mkdir -p ~/mpy/<BRANCH>/ci
cp ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/../mpy-ci/skills/mpy-ci/scripts/ci-local.sh ~/mpy/<BRANCH>/ci/ci-local.sh
cp ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/../mpy-ci/skills/mpy-ci/assets/Dockerfile ~/mpy/<BRANCH>/ci/Dockerfile
chmod +x ~/mpy/<BRANCH>/ci/ci-local.sh

If ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} is not available, fall back to the CI files in the current repo's ci/ directory, or ask the user for the path.

Launch subprocess

Build a prompt from the templates in references/prompt-templates.md. The prompt must include:

• The specific reviewer feedback to address (quoted)
• Instructions to rebase onto upstream/master
• Instructions to fix code formatting
• Instructions to build and test

Run:

cd ~/mpy/<BRANCH> && claude -p --dangerously-skip-permissions "<PROMPT>" 2>&1 | tee /tmp/claude-pr-<NUMBER>.log | tail -30

Key points about the subprocess:

• --dangerously-skip-permissions is required because -p (pipe/non-interactive mode) cannot approve tool permission prompts
• The subprocess gets its own context window, which is better for complex rebase/rewrite work
• If the subprocess fails or needs manual intervention, the user can resume with: cd ~/mpy/<BRANCH> && claude
• The full log is at /tmp/claude-pr-<NUMBER>.log

Verify worktree state after subprocess

After the subprocess exits, verify:

cd ~/mpy/<BRANCH> && git status
cd ~/mpy/<BRANCH> && git log --oneline upstream/master..HEAD

Check that:

• Working tree is clean (no uncommitted changes)
• Branch is ahead of upstream/master
• No stale submodule pointer changes (drop them if present: git checkout upstream/master -- lib/)

Phase 4: CI Validation

Select CI targets

Determine which CI targets to run based on changed files:

cd ~/mpy/<BRANCH> && git diff --name-only upstream/master...HEAD

Apply these rules:

Always include: format, codespell, ruff.

Deduplicate the target list.

Run local CI (MANDATORY before push)

cd ~/mpy/<BRANCH> && ./ci/ci-local.sh format codespell ruff <PORT_TARGETS> 2>&1 | tee /tmp/ci-pr-<NUMBER>.log

This step is mandatory. Do not push until local CI passes. The subprocess in Phase 3 only runs a basic build test — this phase runs the full relevant CI suite.

Run in the background to allow parallel processing of the next PR's recon/discussion, but block the push (Phase 5) until results are available.

Known flaky tests

These tests fail intermittently and should not block a push:

• thread/stress_schedule.py
• misc/sys_settrace_features.py

Phase 5: Push

Only after local CI passes (check the background job results):

cd ~/mpy/<BRANCH> && git push origin <BRANCH> --force-with-lease

--force-with-lease prevents overwriting changes pushed by someone else since the last fetch.

Update state file: set PR status to completed.

After push

Optionally leave a comment on the PR noting the rebase:

gh pr comment <NUMBER> --repo micropython/micropython --body "Rebased onto current master and addressed review feedback."

Phase 6: Cleanup

After all PRs are processed:

# Remove worktrees for completed PRs only
git worktree list | grep ~/mpy/ | awk '{print $1}' | xargs -I{} git worktree remove {}

Only clean up worktrees for PRs with status completed. Keep worktrees for deferred or in_progress PRs.

Edge Cases

Inter-dependent PRs

Process the oldest (base) PR first. If PR B depends on PR A, rebase A first, then rebase B onto A's updated branch.

Very old PRs (2+ years)

Expect significant conflicts. The subprocess may need to reimplement the feature on current master rather than performing a git rebase. Flag this to the user during Phase 2.

Stale submodule pointers

Submodule pointer changes (in lib/) that differ from upstream/master should be dropped:

git checkout upstream/master -- lib/
git commit --amend --no-edit

Draft PRs

Present to the user during Phase 2 with a default recommendation of skip. The user may choose to proceed if the draft is close to ready.

Resources

references/prompt-templates.md

Subprocess prompt templates for different PR scenarios (simple rebase, rebase with feedback, major rework, squash and clean up).