process-pr

name	process-pr
description	Process PR based on code review - if approved, create follow-up issues, merge, close; if changes requested, re-run implement-issue
argument-hint	<pr_number> <issue_number> <base_branch>

Process PR

Read PR review comments and act accordingly: if approved, create follow-up issues and merge; if changes requested, re-run implementation.

Announce at start: "Using process-pr to process PR #$1 for issue #$2"

Arguments:

• $1 — PR number (required)
• $2 — Issue number that the PR addresses (required)
• $3 — Base branch for re-implementation if needed (required)

Examples:

• /process-pr 142 130 aw-next
• /process-pr 456 123 main

Process

digraph process_pr {
    rankdir=TB;
    node [shape=box];

    validate [label="1. Validate inputs"];
    fetch [label="2. Fetch PR & review comments"];
    check [label="3. Check review status"];

    approved [label="Approved path"];
    changes [label="Changes requested path"];

    merge [label="4a. Squash merge PR"];
    comment [label="4b. Comment on issue"];
    close [label="4c. Close issue"];
    delete [label="4d. Delete branch"];
    parse [label="4e. Parse comments for follow-ups"];
    create_issues [label="4f. Create follow-up issues"];

    rerun [label="5. Re-run /implement-issue"];

    output_success [label="Output: Success summary"];
    output_rerun [label="Output: Re-implementation started"];

    validate -> fetch -> check;
    check -> approved [label="approved"];
    check -> changes [label="changes requested"];

    approved -> merge -> comment -> close -> delete -> parse -> create_issues -> output_success;
    changes -> rerun -> output_rerun;
}

Why merge first: Follow-up issues should only be created if the merge succeeds. Creating issues before merge can leave orphaned issues if merge fails (conflict, permissions, etc.). Merging first ensures we only create follow-ups for work that actually landed.

Step 1: Validate Inputs

# Verify PR exists and is open
gh pr view $PR_NUMBER --json state,number,title,headRefName,reviews

# Verify issue exists and is open
gh issue view $ISSUE_NUMBER --json state,number,title

If validation fails: Stop and report error.

Step 2: Fetch PR & Comments

# Get PR with comments
gh pr view $PR_NUMBER --json number,title,state,headRefName,comments

# Also get the full PR view with comments for parsing
gh pr view $PR_NUMBER --repo OWNER/REPO --comments

Extract:

• All PR comments (for review status and follow-up issue extraction)
• PR metadata (title, branch, state)

Step 3: Parse Review Status from Comments

IMPORTANT: Review status is embedded in PR comments by the implement-issue skill. Use this explicit algorithm:

Step 3a: Fetch all PR comments

# Get comments as JSON array
COMMENTS=$(gh pr view $PR_NUMBER --json comments --jq '.comments[].body')

Step 3b: Extract status from comments (most recent wins)

# Parse status using explicit algorithm
parse_review_status() {
    local comments="$1"
    local status=""

    # Process comments in order (last one wins)
    while IFS= read -r comment; do
        # Check for markdown bold format first (preferred)
        if echo "$comment" | grep -q '\*\*Status: APPROVED\*\*'; then
            status="APPROVED"
        elif echo "$comment" | grep -q '\*\*Status: CHANGES_REQUESTED\*\*'; then
            status="CHANGES_REQUESTED"
        # Fallback to plain text format
        elif echo "$comment" | grep -q 'Status: APPROVED'; then
            status="APPROVED"
        elif echo "$comment" | grep -q 'Status: CHANGES_REQUESTED'; then
            status="CHANGES_REQUESTED"
        fi
    done <<< "$comments"

    echo "$status"
}

REVIEW_STATUS=$(parse_review_status "")

Step 3c: Validate status

if [ -z "$REVIEW_STATUS" ]; then
    echo "ERROR: No review status found in PR #$PR_NUMBER comments"
    echo "Expected: Comment containing '**Status: APPROVED**' or '**Status: CHANGES_REQUESTED**'"
    exit 1
fi

echo "Review status: $REVIEW_STATUS"

Status priority:

1. **Status: APPROVED** (markdown bold - preferred)
2. **Status: CHANGES_REQUESTED** (markdown bold - preferred)
3. Status: APPROVED (plain text - fallback)
4. Status: CHANGES_REQUESTED (plain text - fallback)

Multiple reviews: The algorithm processes comments in chronological order. The LAST status found wins, representing the most recent review.

---

If Approved: Merge Path

Step 4a: Squash Merge PR

gh pr merge $PR_NUMBER \
  --squash \
  --delete-branch

If merge fails:

• Log error with reason
• Stop - do not proceed to close issue or create follow-ups
• Return failure status

Step 4b: Comment on Issue

gh issue comment $ISSUE_NUMBER --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Completed

Resolved via PR #$PR_NUMBER (squash merged).

### Follow-up issues created:
- #XXX - Description
- #YYY - Description

(Or "No follow-up issues needed.")
EOF
)"

Step 4c: Close Issue

gh issue close $ISSUE_NUMBER

Verify closure:

gh issue view $ISSUE_NUMBER --json state

Step 4d: Delete Branch

The --delete-branch flag handles this. Verify:

git ls-remote --heads origin $BRANCH_NAME

If still exists:

git push origin --delete $BRANCH_NAME

Step 4e: Parse Comments for Follow-up Issues

Scan all review comments for indicators of follow-up work:

Trigger phrases:

• "create issue for..."
• "follow-up needed:"
• "out of scope but should..."
• "technical debt:"
• "future improvement:"
• "TODO:" (in comments, not code)
• "nice to have:"
• "consider adding:"

Extract for each:

• Title (short description)
• Body (full context from comment)
• Labels (inferred: bug, enhancement, tech-debt)

Step 4f: Create Follow-up Issues

For each extracted issue:

gh issue create \
  --repo OWNER/REPO \
  --title "$ISSUE_TITLE" \
  --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Context
Created from code review of PR #$PR_NUMBER (Issue #$ISSUE_NUMBER)

## Description
$EXTRACTED_DESCRIPTION

## References
- Parent Issue: #$ISSUE_NUMBER
- PR: #$PR_NUMBER
- Reviewer: @$REVIEWER
EOF
)" \
  --label "$LABELS"

Log each: Created follow-up issue #XXX: "$TITLE"

---

If Changes Requested: Re-implementation Path

Step 5: Re-run implement-issue

When the code reviewer requests changes, spawn a new implementation session:

claude --dangerously-skip-permissions \
  --print \
  "/implement-issue $ISSUE_NUMBER $BASE_BRANCH" \
  2>&1 | tee -a logs/process-pr-rerun-$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S).log

Notes:

• The implement-issue skill will:
  • Read the existing PR and review comments
  • Address the requested changes
  • Push to the same branch (updating the PR)
  • Run code review again
• After implement-issue completes, call /process-pr again to check the new review

Log:

Changes requested on PR #$PR_NUMBER. Re-running implementation for issue #$ISSUE_NUMBER...

---

Output

Success (Approved & Merged)

## Process PR Complete

**PR:** #$PR_NUMBER
**Issue:** #$ISSUE_NUMBER
**Status:** ✅ Merged

### Actions Taken
- [x] Review status: APPROVED
- [x] Created N follow-up issues
- [x] PR squash merged
- [x] Issue #$ISSUE_NUMBER closed
- [x] Branch deleted

### Follow-up Issues Created
| Issue | Title | Labels |
|-------|-------|--------|
| #XXX | Description | enhancement |

Re-implementation (Changes Requested)

## Process PR: Changes Requested

**PR:** #$PR_NUMBER
**Issue:** #$ISSUE_NUMBER
**Status:** 🔄 Re-implementing

### Review Feedback
$REVIEW_COMMENTS_SUMMARY

### Action
Re-running /implement-issue $ISSUE_NUMBER $BASE_BRANCH to address requested changes.

Error Handling

Failure Point	Action
Validation fails	Stop, report error
No review status in comments	Stop, report - need code review comment with Status line first
Issue creation fails	Log warning, continue
Merge fails	Stop, return failure, do NOT close issue
Issue close fails	Log warning (merge succeeded)
Branch delete fails	Log warning (best-effort)
Re-implementation fails	Log error, include in output

Integration

Called by:

• handle-issues skill (after implement-issue creates PR)
• User directly via /process-pr <pr> <issue> <branch>

Calls:

• /implement-issue (when changes requested)

Requires:

• gh CLI authenticated
• PR must exist with a code review comment containing **Status: APPROVED** or **Status: CHANGES_REQUESTED**
• Issue must exist and be open

Example Sessions

Approved PR

User: /process-pr 142 130 aw-next

Claude: Using process-pr to process PR #142 for issue #130

Validating... PR #142 open, Issue #130 open
Parsing comments... Status: APPROVED, 1 follow-up found
Creating issue #145: "Add rate limiting to auth endpoint"
Merging PR #142... Squash merge successful
Closing issue #130... done
Deleting branch issue-130-auth-redirect... done

## Process PR Complete
PR: #142 | Issue: #130 | Status: Merged
Follow-up: #145 - Add rate limiting to auth endpoint

Changes Requested

User: /process-pr 142 130 aw-next

Claude: Using process-pr to process PR #142 for issue #130

Validating... PR #142 open, Issue #130 open
Parsing comments... Status: CHANGES_REQUESTED
Feedback: "Need to handle edge case when session expires"

Re-running /implement-issue 130 aw-next...
[spawns headless session]

Machine-Readable Result Output

When invoked via batch-orchestrator.sh with --json-schema, this skill's output is parsed for structured data. To ensure reliable extraction, always end your execution with a clear result statement.

Final Result Output

At the very end of execution, output a clear status summary. This helps --json-schema reliably extract the structured output.

On successful merge:

## Result

Status: merged
Follow-up issues: #145, #146

On merge with no follow-ups:

## Result

Status: merged
Follow-up issues: none

On changes requested:

## Result

Status: changes_requested

On error:

## Result

Status: error
Error: Merge failed - conflict with base branch

On rate limit:

## Result

Status: rate_limit
Error: GitHub API rate limit exceeded

Result Schema

The batch-orchestrator.sh uses this JSON schema to extract results:

{
  "type": "object",
  "properties": {
    "status": {"enum": ["merged", "changes_requested", "error", "rate_limit"]},
    "follow_up_issues": {"type": "array", "items": {"type": "integer"}},
    "error": {"type": "string"}
  },
  "required": ["status"]
}

Important: The final result section must be the last significant output. The --json-schema flag asks Claude to summarize the execution according to this schema, so ending with a clear status makes extraction reliable.