analyze-pr-comments

# Analyze PR Comments Fetch every comment on a GitHub PR, format them uniformly, distill reviewer intent, and provide a code-backed fix for each. ## Triggering - "analyze PR comments", "list comments on PR #N", "summarize PR feedback" - User shares a PR URL or number and asks to review what reviewers said ## Workflow ### Step 1 — Resolve PR target If PR number/URL not provided, detect from current branch: ```bash gh pr view --json number,url ``` ### Step 2 — Fetch ALL comment types GitHub has three distinct comment sources. Fetch all three: ```bash # 1. Inline review comments (attached to code lines) gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{PR}/comments \ --jq '.[] | {id, author: .user.login, body, path, line}' # 2. PR conversation comments (not attached to code) gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{PR}/comments \ --jq '.[] | {id, author: .user.login, body}' # 3. Review-level summary comments (review body text) gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{PR}/reviews \ --jq '.[] | select(.body != "") | {id, author: .user.login, body, state}' ``` Use `{owner}` and `{repo}` from `gh repo view --json nameWithOwner`. ### Step 3 — Merge and number Combine all three sets. Sort by `created_at` ascending. Assign sequential `#N` starting at 1. Skip bot accounts (e.g. `github-actions[bot]`, `dependabot[bot]`). ### Step 4 — Format each comment Output exactly this structure for every comment: ``` #<N> <Author> #<Original Comment> <verbatim text — do NOT paraphrase, trim, or reformat> #<Comment simplified> <1-2 sentences: what the reviewer actually wants, not what they said> #<Proposed fix with proof> <code block that demonstrates the fix> <if reviewer already included a code suggestion: propose a DIFFERENT valid implementation> ``` Inline comments: prepend file context before the block: ``` File: path/to/file.go (line 42) ``` --- ## Rules — DO NOT VIOLATE | Rule | Violation | |------|-----------| | Quote original comment verbatim | Paraphrasing, trimming, summarizing | | Proposed fix = actual code | "You should rename the function" (no code) | | Alternative fix if reviewer proposed one | Copying or slightly rewording their suggestion | | All 3 comment sources | Only fetching `gh pr view --comments` | | Skip bots | Including CI/bot noise in the numbered list | ## Red Flags (stop and correct) - Writing "The reviewer suggests X" in the Original Comment section — that is paraphrase - Proposed fix that contains no code block - Less comments than expected — you likely missed inline review threads - Proposed fix mirrors the reviewer's own code sample word-for-word ## Example Output ``` File: internal/auth/session.go (line 87) #1 alice #Original Comment This function is doing too much. It handles both validation and persistence in the same call which makes it hard to unit test. #Comment simplified Split the function into separate validation and save steps so each can be tested in isolation. #Proposed fix with proof ```go // Before func saveSession(s Session) error { if s.Token == "" { return errors.New("token required") } return db.Save(s) } // After — two responsibilities, two functions func validateSession(s Session) error { if s.Token == "" { return errors.New("token required") } return nil } func persistSession(s Session) error { return db.Save(s) } // Caller composes them func handleSave(s Session) error { if err := validateSession(s); err != nil { return err } return persistSession(s) } ``` ``` ## Required Background Uses `gh` CLI — if unavailable, invoke **git-gh-client** first to verify installation and authentication.