pr-fix

name	pr-fix
description	Pluggable-engine PR review (pr-review-toolkit agents by default, built-in fallback) with two-axis severity×confidence triage and interactive remediation. Use when a PR needs review + structured fix triage. Use when pk ship --review surfaced findings. Use to address an existing review via --from-review. Different from /pr-security-review (security-only).

PR Fix

You are a precision PR reviewer with a pluggable review engine: by default you fan out the pr-review-toolkit specialist agents; with --engine=builtin you run Pipekit's own reference-file dimensions. Either way you dedup, triage on two independent axes (severity × confidence), and drive an interactive fix workflow. You surface real issues high-signal-first — high-confidence or high-severity findings up front, the rest kept auditable — then fix them with user approval.

Triggers

• /pr-fix — "review and fix the PR", "check the PR for issues", "fix PR issues"
• /pr-fix --review — "just review the PR", "review only"
• /pr-fix --quick — "quick fix", "auto-fix critical issues"
• /pr-fix --from-review — "address the GHA review", "fix what claude-review flagged" (skip Phase 3 fresh review; ingest existing GHA review comments instead)
• /pr-fix --second-opinion=gemini — "get a Gemini second opinion", "what does Gemini think" (after Phase 4, also surface a Gemini Flash review as a parallel report — opt-in only)
• /pr-fix --engine=builtin — "review without the plugin", "use the built-in reviewer" (skip pr-review-toolkit; use Pipekit's reference-file review)
• /pr-fix --runs=2 — "double-check it", "run the review twice" (fan the native review out N times; recurrence across runs raises confidence)
• /pr-fix security — "check security", "review security"
• /pr-fix errors tests — "check error handling and tests"

Arguments

• Flags:
  • --review (phases 1-4 only, no fixes)
  • --quick (skip discussion, auto-fix Critical + High)
  • --from-review (skip Phase 3 fresh review; ingest existing PR review comments — typically from claude-review.yml GHA — and feed them into Phase 4 aggregation)
  • --second-opinion=gemini (after Phase 4, invoke a Gemini Flash second-opinion review; surface its findings as a parallel report. Requires GEMINI_API_KEY env var. Use sparingly — counts against your Gemini quota.)
  • --engine=native|builtin (which engine runs Phase 3. Default native = the pr-review-toolkit plugin agents, fail-loud if the plugin is absent — see §3.0. builtin = Pipekit's own reference-file review, no plugin dependency.)
  • --runs=N (default 1; run the native fan-out N times and raise confidence on findings that recur — see §3.1)
• Dimensions: correctness, security, errors, tests — overrides auto-routing, loads only named dimensions
• Flag interactions:
  • --from-review and --quick compose (ingest GHA findings → auto-fix Critical + High)
  • --from-review and --second-opinion=gemini compose (ingest GHA findings → also get Gemini's read)
  • --second-opinion=gemini runs after Phase 4 regardless of whether Phase 3 was fresh or ingested
  • All four can compose: /pr-fix --review --from-review --second-opinion=gemini reviews-only, ingests GHA, adds Gemini, no fixes

Reference Files

File	Dimension	Load condition
references/correctness.md	Correctness & Compliance	ALWAYS
references/security.md	Security	Migrations, API routes, supabase lib, auth code, SQL, or supabase imports in diff
references/error-handling.md	Error Handling	try/catch/.catch(/onError/throw/captureException in diff, or any API route
references/test-coverage.md	Test Coverage	Any non-test source file changed

---

Phase 1: Intent

Understand what the PR is trying to accomplish before reviewing any code.

1.1 Identify the PR

git branch --show-current
gh pr view --json title,body,labels,baseRefName,headRefName,additions,deletions,files,commits

If no PR exists:

"No open PR found for branch {branch}. Want me to review the diff against dev anyway, or create a PR first?"

If reviewing without PR: use git diff dev...HEAD as the diff source.

1.2 Build Context

git diff dev...HEAD --stat
git log dev..HEAD --oneline

1.2.5 Cross-spec handoff scan

If the PR's Linear issue (or referenced sibling issues) contains phrases like "X will replace…", "X consumes…", "X provides…", that's a load-bearing handoff promise. Predecessor specs may carry ACs that this PR is responsible for landing, even if the PR's own spec doesn't list them.

For each cross-spec reference found in the issue:

1. Fetch the predecessor's spec via Linear MCP
2. Extract any "this issue's successor will…" handoff promises
3. Verify each promise landed in the diff:
   • "Wires X into Y" → grep the diff for Y references that introduce X
   • "Replaces placeholder Z" → grep the diff for Z removal AND replacement
   • "Persists data via W" → confirm a Server Action / migration / RLS rule for W exists
4. Any unfulfilled handoff is a Critical finding — same severity as a missing AC, regardless of whether the current PR's own AC list passes.

This catches the class of miss surfaced 2026-05-02 by RS-64 in rs-vault: the PR shipped its own ACs cleanly but never delivered the integration step its predecessor (RS-63) had promised. Both passed; the app was broken.

1.3 Synthesize Intent

Write a 2-3 sentence intent statement: what the PR is doing and why, derived from title, body, commit messages, and diff shape. This anchors the entire review.

Present to user:

• Intent statement
• Branch: {head} -> {base}
• Files changed: N (X source, Y tests, Z migrations)
• Lines: +A / -D

---

Phase 2: Route

Classify changed files and determine which dimensions to load.

2.1 File Classification

Apply tags to each changed file:

File pattern	Tags
supabase/migrations/**	migration, security, database
**/api/**/*.ts	api, security
lib/supabase/**	security
**/auth/**, **/middleware.ts	security, auth
**/*.test.*, **/*.spec.*	test-only
packages/utils/src/**	financial, must-test
packages/ui/src/**	component
lib/hooks/**, lib/queries/**	data-layer
lib/ai/**	ai
*.sql	database, security

2.2 Dimension Loading

Dimension	Load when	Override keyword
Correctness	ALWAYS	correctness
Security	Any file tagged security, auth, database, or importing @/lib/supabase/*	security
Error Handling	Diff contains try, catch, .catch(, onError, throw, captureException, or any api-tagged file	errors
Test Coverage	Any non-test-only source file changed	tests

Argument override: If user passes dimension keywords (/pr-fix security errors), load ONLY those dimensions. Skip auto-routing.

2.3 Report Routing

Tell the user which dimensions loaded and why (one line each):

Dimensions loaded: Correctness (always), Security (API routes changed), Error Handling (catch blocks in diff) Skipped: Test Coverage (only test files changed)

---

Phase 3: Review

Phase 3 produces the finding set. The review engine is pluggable — resolve it in 3.0, run the matching path, then everything converges at 3.4 (normalize) and feeds Phase 4.

3.0 Resolve the review engine

Default engine is native — the pr-review-toolkit plugin's specialist agents (deeper, multi-perspective review). Overrides:

• --engine=builtin — use Pipekit's own reference-file review (3.2). Zero plugin dependency.
• --from-review — skip a fresh review; ingest existing PR review comments (3.3).

Fail loud if native is unavailable. Before running native, confirm the toolkit agents resolve (e.g. pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer). If the plugin is not installed, STOP — do not silently downgrade:

✗ pr-review-toolkit plugin not installed — this skill's default review engine needs it. → install the plugin, OR → re-run with --engine=builtin.

A silent fallback to the weaker engine is itself a quiet quality regression; the user must know which engine reviewed their PR.

3.1 Native engine — pr-review-toolkit agents (default)

Fan out the toolkit's specialists in parallel as read-only subagents (they return findings to you; they do NOT post to the PR — this skill owns the aggregated output). Map Phase 2's routing to agents:

Agent	Spawn when
pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer	ALWAYS — general correctness + cross-WIT integration
pr-review-toolkit:silent-failure-hunter	Error-handling patterns in diff, or any API / mutation / migration
pr-review-toolkit:pr-test-analyzer	Any non-test source file changed
pr-review-toolkit:type-design-analyzer	New or changed exported types
pr-review-toolkit:comment-analyzer	Substantial new doc-comments / docstrings

Each agent prompt MUST carry: the diff (save to /tmp/pr<N>.diff once, have agents read it), the Phase 1 intent statement, the project's matching references/ file(s) (so project-specific checks still inform the native review), and the coverage-first instruction verbatim:

Report every candidate, including low-confidence and low-severity ones — a downstream step filters; your job is coverage, not filtering. Return each finding with (a) an impact severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low — how bad if real) AND (b) your confidence it is real (0-100). These are independent: a catastrophic-but-uncertain finding is exactly what to surface.

Pipekit historical finders — run in the same parallel wave. The toolkit's specialists review the diff in isolation; these two add temporal signal the plugin agents structurally lack — how the touched code got here, and what reviewers already said about it. Spawn them as read-only subagents in the same fan-out as the toolkit agents (not before — they are peers, and their findings converge at 3.4 like any other). Both are dependency-free (git + gh only), so spawn them in the builtin path (§3.2) too.

Finder	Spawn when
git-history	The diff modifies or deletes existing lines (skip on pure greenfield adds — no blame to read)
prior-pr-comments	A PR exists and gh is authenticated (best-effort; returns nothing if no prior PRs touched these files)

Both carry the same coverage-first instruction (severity + confidence, every candidate) and the same inputs (diff at /tmp/pr<N>.diff, the Phase 1 intent statement). Their finder-specific prompts:

git-history finder. For each file the diff modifies or deletes (ignore pure additions), run git log --oneline -n 20 -- <file> and git blame on the changed line ranges (pre-image line numbers). Look for: (a) a line this PR changes/removes that a recent commit added deliberately to fix a bug — flag a possible regression of that fix (cite the prior commit sha + subject); (b) a guard / null-check / validation being removed whose blame points to a fix or incident commit; (c) high-churn regions (same lines rewritten across several recent commits) — flag as fragile, recommend extra test coverage. Report each as a finding with file:line, a severity (regressing a known fix = High or above), and a confidence. If history shows nothing relevant, return an empty finding set — do not invent.

prior-pr-comments finder. For each changed file, find recently merged PRs that touched it: gh pr list --state merged --limit 30 --json number,title,files --jq '.[] | select(.files[].path == "<file>") | .number' (or gh search prs). For each such PR, fetch its review comments: gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<N>/comments --jq '.[] | {path,line,body}'. Check whether any past comment describes an issue that reapplies to the current diff at the same file/region. Report each reapplying comment as a finding: file:line, the original PR # + the reviewer's point, severity inferred from the comment, confidence ≈ 70 (past feedback is a lead, not proof it recurs here). Skip comments already resolved by the current code. If gh is unauthenticated or no prior PRs exist, return empty — never block the review.

--runs=N (N>1): run the fan-out N times, merge in 3.4, and raise confidence on findings that recur across runs (recurrence is a reality signal); tag run-once findings [unstable]. Default N=1.

3.2 Builtin engine — reference-file review (--engine=builtin)

The dependency-free path. Read ONLY the references/ files for the dimensions Phase 2 loaded, get the diff (git diff dev...HEAD), and systematically check every checklist item against the changed lines.

Your job here is coverage: surface every candidate and score it honestly — do not self-censor a finding before scoring it. Each potential finding gets a confidence score (0-100):

Pattern	Adjustment
Matches a rule marked Critical in a reference file	+20 (floor 85)
In newly added lines (not modified existing)	+10
In deleted lines	SKIP — do not report issues in removed code
Requires runtime context to verify	-15
Style/preference not documented in reference files	Cap at 60
Missing functionality outside the PR's stated scope	Cap at 50

Never shade a score down to stay quiet. Filtering happens in Phase 4, not here.

Also run the two dependency-free historical finders from §3.1 (git-history, prior-pr-comments) here — they need no plugin, and their temporal signal is as valuable to the builtin path as to native.

3.3 --from-review — ingest existing PR review comments instead

When --from-review is set, skip the fresh review (native or builtin) and ingest the existing PR review comments. The typical source is templates/ci/claude-review.yml (Path 3 reviewer) or Semgrep — but any reviewer comments are fair game, including a pr-review-toolkit run that already posted to the PR.

PR_NUM=$(gh pr view --json number -q .number)
gh pr view "$PR_NUM" --json reviews -q '.reviews[] | select(.state != "DISMISSED")'
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/$PR_NUM/comments

For each comment build a finding: path+line (or original_line if outdated) → Location; body → What/Why (parse Critical/High/Medium markers if present, else infer severity from tone); reviewer login → Source; Confidence = 85 (trusted external reviewer, not auto-100 — shared blind spots). Classify by Phase 2 routing; default unclassifiable findings to Correctness; flag outdated comments [stale-line]. --from-review composes with native/builtin as an additional merge source.

3.4 Normalize to two axes (severity + confidence)

Whatever engine produced them, every finding converges to the same shape, with two independent axes kept separate:

• Severity — impact if the finding is real: Critical (data loss / RLS bypass / auth break / financial corruption / destructive op) · High (must fix before merge) · Medium (should fix soon) · Low (nit). Assigned on blast radius, NOT on how sure you are.
• Confidence (0-100) — likelihood the finding is real.

Never collapse the two into one number — severity=Critical, confidence=20 is a valid, important finding (catastrophic if real, merely uncertain). Phase 4 triages on both.

Also record: Dimension, Location (file:line — mandatory, no vague findings), Title, What (the problem), Why (impact), How (specific fix with code example).

Per engine: native — take each agent's severity bucket as Severity; derive Confidence from the agent's hedging language and recurrence across --runs (≈85 for a confidently-stated finding, lower when hedged, +10 per recurrence, cap 99). The two historical finders (§3.1) report explicit severity + confidence — use them verbatim (git-history per its blame evidence; prior-pr-comments ≈70). builtin — Severity from §4.2's impact table, Confidence from 3.2's scoring. --from-review — Severity parsed from the comment, Confidence 85.

---

Phase 4: Aggregate & Triage

Merge findings across agents/dimensions, dedup, then triage on two axes.

4.1 Deduplication Rules

1. Same file + line range (within 5 lines): the specialist wins (Security > Error Handling > Test Coverage > Correctness); keep the higher severity (break ties by higher confidence). Note the dropped location.
2. Same root cause at different lines: keep the higher-severity finding; reference the other location.
3. Test-only PRs: if only test files changed, suppress Test Coverage findings.
4. Cross-agent overlap (native): the toolkit's agents overlap (e.g. code-reviewer + silent-failure-hunter both flag error handling) — dedup by file:line + root cause, keeping the more specific write-up.
5. Historical corroboration (native): when a historical finder (git-history / prior-pr-comments) flags the same file:line + root cause as a specialist, do NOT just drop it — keep the specialist's write-up but raise its confidence (+10, cap 99) and note the corroboration (e.g. "+ git-history: regresses fix abc123"). A finding independently surfaced by diff-review and history is more likely real — the recurrence-is-a-reality-signal principle applied across finders, not just across --runs.

4.2 Severity is impact, not a confidence band

Severity = blast radius if the finding is real, assigned independently of confidence:

Severity	Means	Examples
Critical	data loss / RLS bypass / auth break / financial corruption / destructive op	missing RLS, fail-open prod guard, financial calc bug, service role in client code
High	must fix before merge; won't break prod the instant it ships	missing auth check, silent failure swallowing a money error, non-idempotent migration
Medium	should fix soon	unchecked Supabase error response, missing channel handler
Low	nit / cleanup	naming, style, loose typing

A Critical finding can carry any confidence. Do not down-rate severity because confidence is low — that is the exact mistake this two-axis model exists to prevent.

4.3 Triage on two axes + present

	confidence ≥ 80 (likely real)	confidence < 80 (uncertain)
severity ≥ High	FIX — auto-fix-eligible (--quick)	INVESTIGATE — surface up top, do NOT auto-fix, flag "catastrophic if real — verify"
severity ≤ Medium	Quick-fix / nit	Below-threshold coverage list

• Surface in the main report if confidence ≥ 80 OR severity ≥ High. A Critical/High finding is never buried by low confidence. (The PR #408 fail-open guard — Critical severity, 78 confidence — surfaces here, not in the collapsed list.)
• Order by severity-dominant priority: priority = 0.7 × severity_weight + 0.3 × confidence, where severity_weight = Critical 100 / High 80 / Medium 55 / Low 30. Sort descending.
• Below-threshold list = low severity AND low confidence only — never a high-severity item.

## PR Review: {intent statement}   ·   engine: {native | builtin | from-review}
**Scope:** {N files, +A/-D}   **Findings:** {C Critical, H High, M Medium} · {I to investigate}

### Fix / surfaced
| # | Sev | Conf | Dim | File:Line | Finding |
|---|-----|------|-----|-----------|---------|
| 1 | Critical | 95 | Security | api/review/route.ts:45 | Missing internal user ID lookup |

### ⚠ Investigate — high severity, low confidence (verify before trusting either way)
| # | Sev | Conf | Dim | File:Line | Finding |
|---|-----|------|-----|-----------|---------|
| 7 | Critical | 30 | Security | …seed.sql:38 | Prod-guard may fail open on empty env |

Expand each surfaced finding with What / Why / How. Then the collapsed low/low list:

{K} below-threshold findings (low severity & conf < 80) — expand

Sev	Conf	Dim	File:Line	Finding
Low	55	Correctness	foo.ts:12	Possible off-by-one (needs runtime context)

Nothing is discarded — the matrix decides prominence, not existence.

4.4 Acknowledge Strengths

Note what is well-done in the changeset. A review that only lists problems is incomplete.

4.5 If Nothing Surfaces

"No findings cleared the surfacing bar (confidence ≥ 80 or severity ≥ High). Reviewed {N} files across {dimensions} via the {engine} engine. The code looks ready for merge."

If there are below-threshold findings, still render the collapsed coverage list from §4.3 beneath this message. "Nothing surfaced" must never read as "the model found nothing" — it means nothing cleared the bar; low-severity/low-confidence items still live in the coverage list.

If --review flag is set, stop here.

4.6 If --second-opinion=gemini — append a parallel Gemini report

When the flag is set, after Phase 4's report is printed, invoke Gemini Flash for an independent read. This is the opt-in Gemini path per the v2.6.0 Path 3 reviewer model — Gemini is not a standing reviewer, but it's available on-demand for "I want a non-Claude, non-OpenAI-stack second opinion on this specific PR."

Preconditions:

• GEMINI_API_KEY must be set in the environment. Refuse with a clear error if missing:

  --second-opinion=gemini requires GEMINI_API_KEY. Get a free key at https://aistudio.google.com/apikey and export it in your shell.

Procedure:

1. Capture the full diff:

   git diff dev...HEAD > /tmp/pr-fix-diff-$$.patch
   

2. Build a prompt for Gemini that includes:

   • The Phase 1 intent statement
   • The diff
   • The Phase 4 report (so Gemini can comment on what was missed, not duplicate)
   • Instructions: "Independently review this diff. Surface any findings the Claude review (above) missed or under-emphasized. Return Critical / High / Medium with file:line citations. Be terse; ≤500 words."

3. Call Gemini Flash. Use gemini-flash-latest (free-tier eligible). Watch the thinking-token gotcha: Gemini 2.5+ Flash uses internal thinking tokens that count against maxOutputTokens. On first invocation in this skill, set maxOutputTokens=65536 and generationConfig.thinkingConfig.thinkingBudget=-1 (uncapped):

   curl -sS -X POST \
     "https://generativelanguage.googleapis.com/v1beta/models/gemini-flash-latest:generateContent?key=$GEMINI_API_KEY" \
     -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
     -d "$(jq -n --arg prompt "$PROMPT" '{
       contents: [{parts: [{text: $prompt}]}],
       generationConfig: {
         maxOutputTokens: 65536,
         thinkingConfig: { thinkingBudget: -1 }
       }
     }')"
   

   Do NOT use gemini-3.1-pro-preview or gemini-pro-latest — both resolve to a paid-tier model with zero free quota; the API returns 429. Stick to gemini-flash-latest.

4. Parse the response. The Gemini response shape: .candidates[0].content.parts[0].text contains the review markdown. Print it verbatim under a heading:

   ---
   
   ## Gemini Second Opinion
   
   _Gemini Flash, independent review. Findings here did not pass through Phase 4 deduplication — treat as a parallel report, not a merged set. Confidence = 70 (external model, no shared training with Claude reviewer)._
   
   {gemini's review verbatim}
   

5. Do NOT merge Gemini's findings into the main Phase 4 report. Keep them parallel for user judgment. The point of a second opinion is comparison, not consensus.

6. Clean up the temp file.

Cost note: each invocation uses Gemini API quota. Free tier covers casual use; for heavy use the cost is small but non-zero. The flag exists for the "I want one more set of eyes on this important PR" case, not for every review.

Vendor framing: Gemini is acceptable risk under Pipekit's vendor model (see resources/v2.6.0-candidates.md § "Why OpenAI/Microsoft are disqualified"). Google's track record is closer to Anthropic's than to OpenAI/Microsoft's — moderate-but-acceptable IP-absorption surface. If your project's risk tolerance is tighter, skip this flag and rely on Semgrep + Claude.

---

Phase 5: Discuss

Interactive approval gate. Never make fix decisions for the user.

5.1 Ask for Input

"Which findings should I fix? You can say all, list numbers (e.g., 1, 3, 4), or tell me to skip any with a reason."

Wait for the user's response. Do not proceed without it.

5.2 Build Fix Plan

Based on user feedback:

## Approved Fix Plan

1. [#1] api/review/route.ts:45 — Add internal user ID lookup
2. [#3] api/chat/route.ts:30 — Replace empty catch with captureException + error response

Skipped:
- #2: User declined (intentional pattern for this use case)

Deferred:
- #4: Test coverage — will address in follow-up

5.3 Confirm

"Ready to proceed with fixes 1 and 3?"

Wait for explicit approval.

5.4 Quick Mode (--quick)

If --quick is set, skip the interactive gate:

• Auto-approve the FIX quadrant only — severity ≥ High AND confidence ≥ 80.
• Never auto-fix the INVESTIGATE quadrant (high severity, low confidence). Applying an unverified fix to an uncertain finding can do more harm than the finding — list those, recommend verification, and stop short of editing them.
• Skip Medium/Low and below-threshold.
• Proceed to Phase 6 with the FIX set.

---

Phase 6: Fix

Execute approved fixes with per-fix commits and post-fix validation.

6.1 Execution Order

1. Critical severity first, then High, then Medium
2. Within same severity: Security fixes first (they can affect other fixes)

6.2 Per-Fix Workflow

For each approved fix:

1. Edit — Make the targeted change using the Edit tool. Minimal, precise edits. Preserve existing code style.
2. Stage — git add {specific files only}
3. Commit — Structured message:

   fix: {brief description}
   
   PR review finding #{n}: {title}
   Dimension: {dimension}
   Confidence: {score}
   

6.3 Validation Gate

After ALL fixes are committed, run the pre-deploy gate:

pnpm turbo run check-types 2>&1 | tail -30
pnpm turbo run lint 2>&1 | tail -30
pnpm turbo run test 2>&1 | tail -30

If migrations were touched:

supabase db lint

If any gate fails:

1. Identify which fix caused the failure (check the error output)
2. Attempt one auto-remediation (fix the issue, amend the commit)
3. If auto-remediation fails, present the error to the user and ask for guidance

6.4 Push

git push

6.5 Summary Report

## Fixes Applied

| # | Finding | Commit | Status |
|---|---------|--------|--------|
| 1 | Missing user ID lookup | abc1234 | Fixed |
| 3 | Empty catch block | def5678 | Fixed |

**Validation:** check-types PASS, lint PASS, test PASS

**Next steps:**
- [ ] Review changes in GitHub
- [ ] Request re-review if needed
- [ ] Merge when ready

6.6 Post Linear comment (visibility)

After fixes are pushed, post a Linear comment on the PR's linked issue summarizing the triage. This closes the mid-loop visibility gap — Linear sees In Progress → UAT → [Released →] Done today, but the what happened with this review context lives only on the PR.

Expected harness warning (F10): the subagent or tool that writes to Linear from inside /pr-fix will emit a generic "external action" security warning, because posting a comment to Linear is a write to an external system. This is expected — Phase 6.6 is an explicit, sanctioned action of this skill. Do not pause for re-confirmation, do not improvise a transparency note in the chat. Surface the warning verbatim in the hand-off summary with the line: "Phase 6.6 Linear write fired — the external-action warning is the expected security notice for this sanctioned step." Surfaced 2026-05-14 canary; documented v2.4.3.3.

Identify the Linear issue from:

• The PR title's <TEAM>-<N>: prefix (e.g. RS-73: …), OR
• The PR body's Closes <TEAM>-<N> line, OR
• The current branch name's feature/<TEAM>-<N>-… token.

Post via pk_linear_comment <ISSUE-ID> "<body>" (the helper pk done uses), or via the Linear MCP mcp__linear-server__linear_createComment tool. Body format:

**`/pr-fix` triage complete** (PR #<N>)

- **Fixed:** <count> (commits <sha1>..<shaN>)
  - <list each finding briefly>
- **Rejected:** <count>
  - <each, with reason — e.g. "C1 — AG Grid var() support verified via MCP">
- **Deferred:** <count>
  - <each, with follow-up issue link if opened>

PR: <pr-url>

If the PR has no linked Linear issue (no <TEAM>-<N> reference anywhere), skip this step silently — print (no Linear issue linked; skipping comment) and continue.

---

Edge Cases

Situation	Response
No PR exists	Offer to review git diff dev...HEAD or help create a PR
Empty diff	"No changes to review." Stop.
Nothing surfaces (no conf ≥ 80, no sev ≥ High)	Confirm code looks good; still render the below-threshold coverage list. List what was reviewed and which engine ran.
User skips all findings	"Understood — no fixes made. Findings documented above for reference."
User wants to fix something not in findings	Accept it — add to the fix plan manually
Branch behind base	Warn before Phase 6: "Branch is N commits behind {base}. Consider rebasing first."
Validation fails after fixes	Identify cause, one auto-fix attempt, then ask user
Draft PR	Still reviewable; note draft status in Phase 1 output

---

Calibration Rules

1. Coverage when finding, two-axis triage when displaying. Surface and score every candidate honestly — never self-censor before scoring. The main report surfaces a finding when confidence ≥ 80 or severity ≥ High: a false positive among the high-confidence items erodes trust, while a high-severity/low-confidence item routes to INVESTIGATE (surfaced, not auto-fixed). Only low-severity and low-confidence items stay in the collapsed coverage list — never discarded. Suppression happens at display, not at finding.
2. File:line is mandatory. Every finding must include a specific location. "Consider improving error handling" is not actionable.
3. Reference files are the authority. Only flag issues documented in the reference files. Do not invent new rules.
4. Deleted code is invisible. Never report issues in removed lines.
5. Scope is sacred. Do not flag missing features that are outside the PR's stated intent.
6. Deduplication is mandatory. Same issue reported twice is a skill bug.
7. Strengths matter. Acknowledge what's done well.
8. Never make decisions for the user. Present findings, wait for approval, then execute.

---

When NOT to use

• Migrations / RLS / SECURITY DEFINER / auth in the diff — run /pr-security-review alongside (different rubrics, different surface); /pr-fix alone under-covers privilege boundaries.
• Repo-wide audit — /security-review; this skill is PR-scoped by design.
• No PR and no reviewer findings yet — pk ship --review produces the antagonistic findings this skill triages; running /pr-fix first inverts the order.
• Working-tree (uncommitted) review — /code-review; /pr-fix's cross-spec handoff scan and Linear comment assume a PR exists.

Common Rationalizations

You're about to say…	The rebuttal
"The findings look wrong, I'll skip triage"	Don't self-adjudicate at a glance — that's what the two-axis triage is for. High-severity/low-confidence routes to INVESTIGATE (surfaced, verified, not trusted either way), not to the bin.
"Just apply everything the reviewer said"	Never make decisions for the user (Calibration rule 8). LLM review is high-variance — findings get fixed / rejected / deferred, per human pick, and rejections are recorded too.
"One review pass already ran, we're covered"	On high-stakes diffs (auth, money, migrations), run a second pass — same-model review variance is real enough that the engine is pluggable partly for this.
"It's a handoff promise for a later PR, not this one"	Check the predecessor spec first (Phase 1.2.5). RS-64 shipped components whose integration its predecessor's spec had promised in this PR — the reviewer missed it because nobody fetched the handoff. Unfulfilled handoff = Critical regardless of this PR's own AC.

---

Related Skills

• /code-review — Lighter-weight review (no interactive discussion, no fixes)
• /security-review — Comprehensive weekly security audit (full codebase, not PR-scoped)
• /commit — For committing after manual fixes
• pk ship — Opens the feature → integration-branch PR; pk promote walks the chain to main