fetch-pr-review

name	fetch-pr-review
description	Fetch all reviewer comments from a pull request URL (GitHub, Azure DevOps, …) and save them as a self-contained markdown PR-REVIEW file in the task's planning directory. Fetch only — no fixing or replying.
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"Francesco Borzì","version":"1.6"}

PR review fetcher

Fetch only — capture the review feedback left on a pull request; never fix code, reply, or judge the comments. Output is a self-contained .PR-REVIEW.md a fresh session can pick up and act on (e.g. via /refine-pr-review).

Source & access

Identify the platform from the PR URL (host shape) and fetch through the matching MCP server or CLI — e.g. GitHub MCP / gh for GitHub PRs, Azure DevOps MCP for ADO pull requests. Use whichever equivalent tools are connected; tool name prefixes vary by config. If the input is ambiguous, or no matching MCP/CLI is available, ask the user / stop — don't guess.

Golden rule: never assume — ask

Every uncertainty is confirmed with the user before proceeding: a thread's resolved status, the planning directory, the slug, anything ambiguous in between. A plausible guess is a question, not an answer.

Your task

1. Resolve the input. Accept a full PR URL; extract repo/project and PR id. If unrecognizable, ask.
2. Fetch the PR metadata — title, description, source/target branch, state, author, linked ticket/work item — and all feedback:
   • inline review threads (file, line, code context, full reply chain);
   • top-level review verdicts (approve / request changes / …) with their summary text;
   • general conversation comments;
   • bot comments (CI, linters, coverage, …) — captured too, but grouped separately from human feedback.
3. Determine each thread's status (see Status flags).
4. Decide the output directory — the planning directory of the task the PR belongs to, following the project's/user's convention for where plans live (default: .agents/plans/). Guess the task's existing home from PR context (linked ticket id, branch name, PR title) — its <id>-<slug>/ subdirectory, or the shared parent/group directory holding its <id>-<slug>.TICKET.md when the ticket lives flat there — and confirm the guess with the user; when not sure, always ask. If no matching exists, propose a new <id>-<slug> (ticket id prefix when bound to one, kebab-case slug from the PR title), confirm, and create it.
5. Pick the file name — <slug>.PR-REVIEW.md, where <slug> is the planning directory name — in a shared directory, the ticket's own <id>-<slug> instead (e.g. 1234-some-task.PR-REVIEW.md). If it already exists and this is a new review round, write <slug>.PR-REVIEW-2.md, -3, … — never overwrite; history per round is kept on purpose.
6. Write the document (see structure below).
7. Print the result — project-relative paths and the next-step line.

Status flags

Capture every comment, resolved or not, with its state from the platform's own signal (e.g. GitHub thread resolution, ADO thread status):

• Open / active → actionable; no flag needed.
• Resolved (closed, fixed, won't fix, …) → keep it, marked resolved, with the platform's original status verbatim — wontFix is resolved but carries different intent than fixed.
• Outdated (anchored to code later commits changed) → distinct outdated flag, never merged into resolved: the code moved, but the concern may still be valid — say so in the document.
• Unclear — the platform gives no clear signal, or the thread reads ambiguous (e.g. a reply says "done" but the thread is still open) → ask the user how to mark it; never decide alone.

Document structure

Must stand on its own: a fresh session with no access to the PR must be able to locate every spot in the code and understand every piece of feedback without re-fetching.

# PR review: <title>

> **Source** [<PR id>](<url>)
> **Branch** <source> → <target>
> **State** {open/merged/…}
> **Author** {display name}
> **Linked ticket** [<id>](<url>) — omit if none
> **Fetched** {today YYYY-MM-DD}

## Review verdicts        — one per reviewer: verdict + summary text
## Inline threads         — one ### per thread: `path:line`, quoted code context/diff hunk,
                            comments oldest first as <author> — <date>, status flag
## General comments       — non-inline human conversation, oldest first
## Bot comments           — automated feedback, grouped by bot

Omit empty sections. Quote file paths, code, identifiers, and user-facing strings verbatim — never alter or translate them.

Boundaries

• The PR stays untouched — fetching is read-only: no replies, no resolving threads, no votes, approvals, or edits.
• Do not fix, analyze, or triage the feedback — capture and flag only.
• The only files you create: the .PR-REVIEW.md (and its planning directory if new).

Next step

State clearly when done, using project-relative paths. List any thread whose status needed a user decision and how it was marked. Then hand off the next phase as a single copy-pasteable launch command — session name and prompt combined, so one paste starts the session. Use the launch syntax of the agent tool in use (vendor-agnostic — claude below is only the example), naming the session refine-pr-<slug>:

claude --name refine-pr-<slug> "/refine-pr-review <output-dir>/<slug>.PR-REVIEW.md"

Then offer the alternative — clearing the current session instead (vendor-agnostic — /clear below is only the example; use the clear command of the agent tool in use):

OR /clear and run:

/refine-pr-review <output-dir>/<slug>.PR-REVIEW.md