pr-address-feedback

name	pr-address-feedback
description	Guide for handling pull request reviews, including automated (Copilot, CodeRabbit) and human reviewer feedback. Use when responding to PR comments, resolving review threads, or updating PRs after review.
argument-hint	<PR number>
user-invocable	true
metadata	{"author":"APME Team","version":"1.2.0"}

PR Address Feedback

This skill defines how to handle PR review feedback in the APME project.

Responding to review comments

Every review comment MUST receive a response. Resolve threads only after the feedback has been addressed and accepted; leave threads unresolved when disputing feedback and escalate to a human reviewer. Unanswered comments or unresolved disputed threads block merge.

Rules

• Address ALL review comments before requesting re-review. Do not leave comments unanswered.

• Every comment requires a closing reply. When the feedback is addressed or accepted, also resolve the thread via the GitHub API. When disputing or flagging a false positive, leave the thread unresolved for human escalation.

• Reply to each comment with a brief explanation of how it was resolved and the commit hash (e.g., "Removed the unused imports so Ruff F401 passes. Fixed in abc1234."). Do not reply with only the SHA; explain the fix.

• If a comment is a false positive or you disagree, reply with a clear technical explanation. Do not resolve the thread. This will require human intervention. Do not dismiss without justification.

• After pushing fixes, update the PR description to reflect the expanded scope (per the pr-new skill).

Deferred work MUST be tracked

Any time a review response includes language like "follow-up PR", "subsequent PR", "leaving as a follow-up", "future enhancement", "out of scope for this PR", or "logging this for later" — you MUST create a GitHub issue immediately using gh issue create. Do not reply to the comment without also creating the issue. Include the issue URL in your reply so the reviewer can verify tracking.

Untracked follow-ups are invisible debt. If it is worth mentioning, it is worth an issue.

# Create a follow-up issue and capture the URL
gh issue create --repo ansible/apme \
  --title "<type>(scope): <brief description>" \
  --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Context

<What was the review comment and why it wasn't addressed in this PR>

Flagged in: <link to PR comment thread>

## Proposal

<What should be done>

## References

- PR #N
EOF
)"

Automated reviews as agent learning opportunities

Every automated reviewer comment (Copilot, CodeRabbit) on an agent-authored PR is a defect in our own review process. These tools apply the same principles every time — if one found something, the agent's pre-submit self-review (see the pr-new skill, Step 3 + Step 3b Rule of Five) should have found it first. Without tightening that loop, we will never ship a PR without comments.

After fixing each automated finding, ask: which principle from the pr-new self-review (Step 3 questions or Rule of Five pass 1–5) should have caught this? If one exists but didn't trigger, the principle needs to be clearer or the agent didn't apply it. If no principle covers it, strengthen the matching Rule of Five lens (or Step 3 question) — frame it as a general evaluation criterion, not a specific instance. Adding "don't do X" only prevents X; strengthening a principle prevents the entire class of issues X belongs to.

How automated reviewers evaluate code

Automated reviewers (Copilot, CodeRabbit) succeed because they apply a small number of universal evaluation criteria to every line of the diff. Understanding these criteria lets the agent anticipate findings rather than react to them.

Semantic truthfulness. Every declaration is read as a contract. The reviewer checks whether types, return values, error codes, version ranges, log levels, comments, and docstrings accurately describe what the code actually does. Any gap — a comment that says "all" when the code means "some", a return type that promises T but can produce None, a docstring that lists parameters the function no longer accepts — gets flagged.

Information exposure. The reviewer asks "should this data be visible here?" for every piece of information that escapes internal scope: logged data, error messages, API responses, documentation examples. User content in info-level logs, credentials on CLI examples, internal paths in error messages — all get flagged because the reviewer assumes the minimum-exposure principle.

Caller safety. The reviewer reads every public interface from the caller's perspective and asks "could this surprise me?" Nullable returns not reflected in the type, missing null guards on platform-provided arguments, unsafe casts, optional fields typed as required, hidden side effects (logging, I/O, global state) that the name or signature doesn't advertise — all get flagged because the reviewer assumes callers trust the type signature and expect no undisclosed behavior.

Drift between prose and code. Any time a comment, docstring, ADR, README, or inline annotation co-exists with the code it describes, the reviewer checks whether the prose is still true after the diff. Renamed functions with old docstrings, changed triggers with old workflow descriptions, removed features with lingering references — all flagged.

Supply-chain mutability. References to external resources (action tags, dependency versions, base images) that can change without review get flagged. The reviewer assumes that anything not pinned to a specific immutable identifier is a vector for silent behavior change.

Internal consistency. Every module's exports, code paths, and naming conventions are checked against each other. If nine code paths use a registry lookup but the tenth hardcodes a value, or if one export capitalizes differently from its siblings, the reviewer flags the deviation because inconsistency signals copy-paste drift or an unfinished refactor.

Adversarial input tracing. The reviewer constructs edge-case scenarios for public functions: what happens with an empty-but-not-falsy value, a field combination after partial deletion, a response that satisfies the gRPC status check but lacks expected fields? If the traced path fails silently, sends a vacuous request, or produces a return value that violates the declared type, the reviewer flags it.

Inherited contract completeness. When the diff extends a class or implements a Protocol, the reviewer checks that the subclass honors the full runtime contract — not just the compiler-required members but expected behaviors. A validator that writes files (violating ADR-009), a gRPC servicer using synchronous calls (violating ADR-007), a transform that modifies state without calling submit() — all get flagged because mypy enforces structure but runtime contracts include semantics the type checker cannot verify.

Dead weight. Unused imports, unreachable branches, written-but-never- read variables, parameters accepted but ignored — anything the code pays for but doesn't use. The reviewer assumes dead code obscures intent and may mask bugs.

APME-specific patterns

These are known project-specific applications of the principles above. They serve as a quick reference, not an exhaustive list — the principles above should catch novel issues these don't cover.

• Validator read-only invariant: validators must never modify files (ADR-009). If a validator writes, creates, or deletes any file, flag it.
• Proto-servicer parity: every RPC in primary.proto / validate.proto must have a matching servicer method in daemon/. Missing handlers mean gRPC returns UNIMPLEMENTED at runtime.
• Rule ID conventions: L/M/R/P/SEC per ADR-008, EXT- for plugins (ADR-042). Misformatted rule IDs break filtering and reporting.
• Executor discipline: blocking work (engine scan, subprocess calls, venv builds) must use run_in_executor(), never block the event loop (ADR-007). Look for synchronous subprocess.run() or file I/O in async server methods.
• Dependency direction: engine never imports from gateway (ADR-020, ADR-029). If apme_engine imports apme_gateway, flag it.
• Session venv ownership: only Primary writes to /sessions (ADR-022). Other services mount it read-only.
• tox-only invocation: never invoke ruff, mypy, pytest, or prek directly in docs, scripts, or CI (ADR-047). Always use tox -e <env>.
• GitHub Actions pinning: pin to commit SHAs with a tag comment (actions/checkout@SHA # v4), not mutable tags.
• OPA is subprocess, not REST: the OPA validator invokes opa eval via subprocess — do not introduce httpx or HTTP client dependencies for OPA (verified in code, documented in AGENTS.md invariant 9).

Automated review patterns

Copilot and CodeRabbit surface recurring categories. Address these proactively before pushing to avoid review round-trips:

Supply-chain security

Pin GitHub Actions to commit SHAs instead of mutable tags (@v1). Mutable tags allow upstream changes to affect CI without review. Use a comment to note the original tag:

- uses: actions/checkout@11bd71901bbe5b1630ceea73d27597364c9af683 # v4

Inaccurate documentation

Documentation MUST accurately describe the actual behavior. Be specific about triggers, branches, and conditions.

Markdown table formatting

Tables must use a single leading | on each line. Double leading || renders as an extra empty column. Validate table rendering before committing.

Inaccurate comments

Code comments and docstrings MUST accurately describe what the code does. If you rename a function, change behavior, or remove functionality, update all associated comments in the same commit.

Secrets in documentation

Never show API keys, tokens, or credentials on command lines in docs or examples. Demonstrate env var usage instead.

Unused imports (Ruff F401)

Remove unused imports or use the symbol. Prefer trimming the import list over # noqa: F401 unless the import is intentionally side-effect only.

Workflow

1. Sync Branch: Ensure the PR branch is up to date with upstream main.

   git fetch upstream
   git rebase upstream/main
   

2. Review & Plan: Check CI status and read all review comments. Write out a brief Action Plan detailing which files you will edit to fix the comments.

3. Fix & Validate Locally: Fix all issues in minimal commits. Crucially, run local validation before pushing (e.g., tox -e lint or tox -e unit) to ensure your fix doesn't break something else.

4. Push: git push --force-with-lease

5. Wait & Verify Remote CI: Wait 2-3 minutes for remote CI pipelines to run, then check their status. Some tests only run remotely; fix any remote-only failures before proceeding.

6. Reply & Resolve (GraphQL): Reply to every single comment with how it was handled (fixed + hash, deferred + issue link, or disputed). Only resolve the threads you actually fixed or formally deferred. Leave disputed threads unresolved for human review.

7. Verify Actions: Query the threads one last time to ensure every thread has your reply, and that you didn't accidentally resolve a thread you didn't fix.

Checking CI status

Always check CI checks as part of the review workflow.

# After pushing, wait a few minutes, then list pending or failing checks (replace N with PR number)
gh pr checks N --json name,state --jq '.[] | select(.state != "SUCCESS")'

# View failed job logs directly
gh run view RUN_ID --log-failed 2>&1 | tail -80

Do not run ruff, mypy, pytest, or prek directly — always use tox.

Replying to and Resolving review threads (GraphQL ONLY)

CRITICAL: Always use GraphQL (Base64 Node IDs) for both listing, replying, and resolving. Do NOT mix REST integer IDs with GraphQL Node IDs. Do NOT use minimizeComment.

Step 1: List unresolved threads to get THREAD_ID Replace N with the PR number. This gets the id for each unresolved thread.

gh api graphql -f query='{
  repository(owner: "ansible", name: "apme") {
    pullRequest(number: N) {
      reviewThreads(first: 50) {
        nodes { id isResolved comments(last: 5) { nodes { body author { login } } } }
      }
    }
  }
}' --jq '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes[] | select(.isResolved == false) | {id, snippet: .comments.nodes[0].body[0:120]}'

Step 2: Reply to the thread Replace THREAD_ID with the id fetched above. State how the issue was resolved and the commit hash, OR explain why it is being disputed.

gh api graphql -f query='mutation {
  addPullRequestReviewThreadReply(input: {pullRequestReviewThreadId: "THREAD_ID", body: "Removed the unused imports so Ruff F401 passes. Fixed in abc1234."}) {
    comment { id }
  }
}'

Step 3: Resolve the thread (CONDITIONAL) Only run this if you successfully addressed the comment or filed a follow-up issue. Do NOT run this if you are disputing the comment.

gh api graphql -f query='mutation {
  resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_ID"}) {
    thread { isResolved }
  }
}'

(You may combine Step 2 and Step 3 in a single bash script or execute them sequentially.)

Verification Check

After replying and selectively resolving, run this query to list all threads (resolved and unresolved) with their latest replies. This differs from Step 1, which only shows unresolved threads.

gh api graphql -f query='{
  repository(owner: "ansible", name: "apme") {
    pullRequest(number: N) {
      reviewThreads(first: 50) {
        nodes { id isResolved comments(last: 3) { nodes { body author { login } } } }
      }
    }
  }
}' --jq '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes[] | {id, isResolved, lastReplyBy: .comments.nodes[-1].author.login, lastReplySnippet: .comments.nodes[-1].body[0:120]}'

• Verify Replies: Every thread must have a reply from you. If lastReplyBy is still the original reviewer, that thread was missed.

• Verify Intentional State: Unresolved threads should only be ones you intentionally left open (disputed). Verify that any thread still showing isResolved: false was left open on purpose. Do NOT blindly resolve all threads just to clear the list.

After pushing fixes: check for new automated reviews

Copilot and CodeRabbit may run again on new commits. Re-check whether they left new reviews or line comments so you can reply and resolve any new threads.

# New Copilot review (replace N with PR number, ISO8601 with last push time)
gh api repos/ansible/apme/pulls/N/reviews --jq '.[] | select(.user.login == "copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot]" and .submitted_at > "ISO8601") | {submitted_at, state, body: .body[0:200]}'

# New Copilot inline comments
gh api repos/ansible/apme/pulls/N/comments --jq '.[] | select(.user.login == "copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot]" and .created_at > "ISO8601") | {created_at, path, body: .body[0:200]}'

# New CodeRabbit review
gh api repos/ansible/apme/pulls/N/reviews --jq '.[] | select(.user.login == "coderabbitai[bot]" and .submitted_at > "ISO8601") | {submitted_at, state, body: .body[0:200]}'

# New CodeRabbit inline comments
gh api repos/ansible/apme/pulls/N/comments --jq '.[] | select(.user.login == "coderabbitai[bot]" and .created_at > "ISO8601") | {created_at, path, body: .body[0:200]}'