Summary format: after reviewing every comment, present all decisions grouped by severity, one compact block per comment. Do NOT quote the full body verbatim — the user has GitHub open and can click through. Rephrase the claim in one sentence in your own words.
Extract severity from the comment's prefix when present ([SECURITY — CRITICAL], [CODE QUALITY — HIGH], [TESTS — LOW], [SUGGESTION], etc.). If no prefix, infer: correctness/security bugs → HIGH; performance, tests, or missing error paths → MEDIUM; style, docstrings, naming, "for symmetry", "for consistency" nits → LOW.
Block format per comment:
N. [ACCEPT|REJECT] {path}:{line or "general"} @{user} — {your one-sentence rephrase of the claim}
Reason: {1-2 lines, technical}
Fix: {concrete action you will take} # only if ACCEPT
Alternative: {what you propose instead} # only if REJECT
Link: {comment.html_url}
Present them in this order:
HIGH — decision required:
<blocks>
MEDIUM — decision required:
<blocks>
LOW / nits — proposed REJECT in batch (unless you rescue any):
<blocks, but with just the one-line rephrase + link; no Reason/Alternative>
Then ask ONE question: "Confirm my ACCEPT/REJECT on HIGH+MEDIUM and I discard the LOW batch — or do you want to rescue any LOW?"
Omit a section entirely if it has no comments. If ALL comments are LOW and every one would be REJECT, offer: "This round is all low-severity nits and rehashes of earlier positions. Close the round without replying?" — closing without a reply is a valid outcome when the original threads already carry your positions.
Exception: if a comment is genuinely short (<3 lines) and self-contained, quoting it verbatim is fine. The rule is "don't repeat information the user can read in one glance in GitHub".
