code-review

name	code-review
description	Systematically retrieve, categorize, and address PR code review comments with an auditable evidence ledger — AI review loop, per-comment commits, suppression-free fixes, and pushed-head verification of required checks and approval. Use when handling code review feedback, addressing PR comments, or driving a reviewed React/TypeScript PR to merge-ready state.

Code Review Workflow Skill

Profile keys consumed

• project.repo
• make.ci, make.ai_review_loop, make.pr_comments, make.format, make.lint, make.lint_eslint, make.lint_tsc, make.lint_md, make.lint_dup, make.lint_metrics, make.lint_deps, make.test_unit_client, make.test_unit_server, make.test_integration, make.test_e2e, make.test_visual, make.test_mutation, make.merge_mutation_reports, make.lighthouse_desktop, make.lighthouse_mobile, make.a11y, make.post_review_findings
• quality.coverage_statements, quality.coverage_branches, quality.coverage_functions, quality.coverage_lines, quality.mutation_msi, quality.jscpd_clones, quality.eslint_errors, quality.eslint_warnings, quality.tsc_errors, quality.markdownlint_errors, quality.depcruise_violations, quality.metrics_enforced, quality.visual_diffs, quality.lighthouse_desktop, quality.lighthouse_mobile
• capabilities.publish_pr_comments, capabilities.visual_testing, capabilities.lighthouse, capabilities.mutation_testing, capabilities.accessibility_audit
• ci.provider, ci.required_checks
• review.ai_review_agents, review.coderabbit, review.request_changes_blocking

Context (Input)

• PR has unresolved code review comments
• Need systematic approach to address feedback
• Ready to implement reviewer suggestions
• Need to maintain quality standards during review implementation
• Profile loaded from .claude/react-sdlc.yml (run /fe-sdlc-setup if missing). When review.coderabbit is false, the AI review loop is the primary comment source; review threads still go through the same evidence protocol.

Task (Function)

Systematically retrieve, categorize, and address all PR code review comments while maintaining quality standards and PR readiness.

Success Criteria:

• Direct GitHub GraphQL review-thread query shows 0 unresolved review comments, and the PR_COMMENT_EVIDENCE ledger records SNAPSHOT_STARTED_AT=<auto-captured ISO time>, SNAPSHOT_CAPTURED_BY=code-review-skill, PR_HEAD=<sha>, plus every review-thread, top-level PR issue, and review body comment from that snapshot as COMMENT_META|url|updatedAt|body_sha256 and COMMENT|url|commit|sha, COMMENT|url|reply|url, or COMMENT|url|decline|url; reply/decline evidence comments must be posted by the PR author or a login in PR_COMMENT_TRUSTED_EVIDENCE_ACTORS and include structured EVIDENCE_SOURCE, EVIDENCE_ACTION, and decline EVIDENCE_REASON; non-evidence comments created or edited after the snapshot block completion until the snapshot and evidence are restarted, except an otherwise qualifying approval review on pushed HEAD whose body is empty or exactly FINAL_APPROVAL_NO_ACTION: true
• The target mapped by make.ci exits 0
• A final AI review loop run (the target mapped by make.ai_review_loop, or "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/ai-review-loop.sh" when that key is null) reports AI_REVIEW_VERDICT: PASS after the make.ci target, on the same commit; if it applies fixes, repeat CI and the loop until both pass without new changes
• Local HEAD is pushed and matches gh pr view <number> --repo "$PR_REPO" --json headRefOid
• Commit-scoped status/check rollup for local HEAD is queried from the base PR repository (project.repo), is non-empty, non-required contexts have only allowed terminal states (SUCCESS, SKIPPED, or NEUTRAL), and every check named in ci.required_checks plus every live base-branch protection required status/check is present with state SUCCESS on that pushed head; GitHub Actions check URLs must point at the base PR repository
• Final direct GitHub GraphQL review-thread query after the pushed-head verification still shows 0 unresolved review comments
• gh pr view <number> --repo "$PR_REPO" --json state,mergeStateStatus,mergeable,reviewDecision,isDraft,reviewRequests shows the PR is open, not draft, not conflicting, is , is empty, and a direct review query shows an review on the pushed submitted after the latest addressed comment evidence by a non-author reviewer with , , or association. When is (default), any review state blocks completion until re-reviewed.

Degrade rule (NFR-4): when ci.provider is null, skip the check-waiting and check-rollup steps with an explicit capability-absent note; all local gates (CI target, AI review loop, evidence ledger, unresolved-thread queries) still apply.

Workflow Overview

AI Review Loop → PR Comments (snapshot) → Categorize → Apply by Priority →
Verify → Run CI → Final AI Review Loop → Push → GitHub Readiness → Done

Evidence Ledger Protocol

Every addressed comment leaves an auditable trace in a ledger file pointed to by PR_COMMENT_EVIDENCE. The protocol prevents silently dropped feedback and backdated "done" claims.

Snapshot capture — auto-capture the timestamp; never supply or backdate it manually:

capture_review_comment_snapshot() {
  REVIEW_COMMENT_SNAPSHOT_STARTED_AT="$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"
  export REVIEW_COMMENT_SNAPSHOT_STARTED_AT
}
capture_review_comment_snapshot
printf 'SNAPSHOT_STARTED_AT=%s\nSNAPSHOT_CAPTURED_BY=code-review-skill\n' \
  "$REVIEW_COMMENT_SNAPSHOT_STARTED_AT" > "$PR_COMMENT_EVIDENCE"

Ledger format (one line each):

SNAPSHOT_STARTED_AT=<ISO-8601 UTC>
SNAPSHOT_CAPTURED_BY=code-review-skill
PR_HEAD=<final local head sha>
COMMENT_META|<comment url>|<updatedAt>|<sha256 of bodyText>
COMMENT|<comment url>|commit|<sha>      # fixed by a commit
COMMENT|<comment url>|reply|<url>       # answered by a reply comment
COMMENT|<comment url>|decline|<url>     # declined with reasoned comment

The body hash comes from the comment's bodyText:

b64_decode() {
  if printf '' | base64 --decode >/dev/null 2>&1; then base64 --decode; else base64 -D; fi
}
sha256_hex() {
  if command -v sha256sum >/dev/null 2>&1; then sha256sum; else shasum -a 256; fi
}
body_hash_from_b64() {
  printf '%s' "$1" | b64_decode | sha256_hex | awk '{ print $1 }'
}
iso_time_epoch() {
  date -u -d "$1" +%s 2>/dev/null ||
    date -u -j -f '%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ' "$1" +%s
}

Validation rules — each COMMENT line must satisfy, against the comment's effective time (the later of createdAt and updatedAt):

• commit evidence: the sha resolves (git rev-parse --verify <sha>^{commit}), is an ancestor of local HEAD, is NOT an ancestor of the trusted base ref, its committer time is later than the comment's effective time, and its commit message references the source comment URL.
• reply evidence: a same-PR comment URL different from the source, with a later effective time, posted by the PR author or a login listed in the comma-separated PR_COMMENT_TRUSTED_EVIDENCE_ACTORS, whose body contains EVIDENCE_SOURCE: <source URL> and a positive EVIDENCE_ACTION: (addressed|resolved|fixed|implemented|updated|changed|applied).
• decline evidence: same actor and URL rules, body contains EVIDENCE_SOURCE: <source URL>, a no-change EVIDENCE_ACTION: (declined|stale|duplicate|not applicable|not needed|won't fix|will not fix), and a non-empty EVIDENCE_REASON: <reason>.
• Every COMMENT_META line must have a matching, valid COMMENT line, and the recorded updatedAt/hash must still match the live comment (an edited comment invalidates its evidence).

Post-snapshot rule: any non-evidence PR/review comment created or edited after SNAPSHOT_STARTED_AT forces a restart of snapshot capture and evidence collection. Allowed exceptions: validated reply/decline evidence URLs, and an otherwise qualifying approval review on pushed HEAD whose body is empty or exactly FINAL_APPROVAL_NO_ACTION: true.

Comment enumeration — three sources, each paginated with 100-node cursor pages (pageInfo{hasNextPage endCursor}); never trust a single unpaginated page:

1. Review-thread comments — pullRequest.reviewThreads(first:100) with nested comments(first:100); threads whose inner comments.pageInfo.hasNextPage is true must be drained via node(id:$threadId){... on PullRequestReviewThread{comments(first:100,after:$cursor)...}}.
2. Top-level PR issue comments — pullRequest.comments(first:100).
3. Review bodies — pullRequest.reviews(first:100).

Each node yields url, createdAt, updatedAt, bodyText; skip empty bodies; emit url|createdAt|updatedAt|base64(bodyText) items, deduplicate with sort -u, and filter before/after the snapshot by effective time.

Execution Steps

Step 0: Run Autonomous AI Review Loop

Before addressing PR comments manually, fetch the PR base into a trusted ref and run the autonomous review loop against that base:

set -euo pipefail
command -v jq >/dev/null || { echo "jq is required" >&2; exit 1; }

: "${PR:?Set PR to the pull request number}"
case "$PR" in
  ''|*[!0-9]*) echo "PR must be numeric" >&2; exit 1 ;;
esac
: "${PR_REPO:?Set PR_REPO=owner/repo for the base PR repository (profile project.repo)}"
PR_META="$(gh pr view "$PR" --repo "$PR_REPO" --json baseRefName,baseRefOid)"
BASE_REF="$(printf '%s\n' "$PR_META" | jq -r .baseRefName)"
BASE_OID="$(printf '%s\n' "$PR_META" | jq -r .baseRefOid)"
TRUSTED_BASE_REF="refs/remotes/pr-base/$PR"
git fetch "[e-mail]:${PR_REPO}.git" "$BASE_REF:$TRUSTED_BASE_REF"
test "$(git rev-parse "$TRUSTED_BASE_REF")" = "$BASE_OID"

Then run the loop. If make.ai_review_loop is non-null, invoke that make target with the trusted base as the diff base; when it is null, the plugin substitutes its script:

"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/ai-review-loop.sh" --diff-base "$TRUSTED_BASE_REF"

The loop:

1. Runs the review agent(s) from review.ai_review_agents against the diff from the given base (v1 supports claude only; other entries warn+skip)
2. On a FAIL verdict, lets the reviewer apply safe fixes in the same iteration (the plugin script runs claude with --permission-mode acceptEdits)
3. Re-reviews until a PASS verdict or the iteration cap (plugin script: --max-iterations, default 5)

The plugin script runs no CI between iterations — verify the fixed tree with the target mapped by make.ci afterwards (Step 6); a repo-mapped make.ai_review_loop may run its own verification command per iteration (commonly the CI target). The plugin script's default prompt covers correctness, accessibility, FR/NFR coverage, and code health: component/state design tradeoffs, appropriate React/MUI/Emotion and Zustand pattern use, code smells, SOLID/DRY/KISS, bulletproof-react module boundaries, tsyringe DI seams, and repository rules (no static / free functions in src/**/*.ts, type-only files, no data-testid). Set the REVIEW_PROMPT environment variable to override the scope. Review failures must stay concrete and scoped to changed code or directly affected behavior.

Success contract: the loop exits 0 with a final AI_REVIEW_VERDICT: PASS line (plugin script contract). Repo-provided loops may print their own banner — treat exit status as the contract:

AI_REVIEW_OUTPUT="$(AI_REVIEW_BASE="$TRUSTED_BASE_REF" make ai-review-loop 2>&1)"
printf '%s\n' "$AI_REVIEW_OUTPUT"
AI_REVIEW_LAST_LINE="$(printf '%s\n' "$AI_REVIEW_OUTPUT" | sed '/^[[:space:]]*$/d' | tail -n 1)"
test "$AI_REVIEW_LAST_LINE" = "AI review PASS."

Configuration — plugin script flags (canonical): --agents LIST (overrides review.ai_review_agents), --max-iterations N (default 5), --diff-base REF (default main). Repo-provided loops commonly accept environment overrides instead:

AI_REVIEW_BASE="$TRUSTED_BASE_REF" AI_REVIEW_AGENTS=claude make ai-review-loop
AI_REVIEW_BASE=develop AI_REVIEW_MAX_ITER=1 make ai-review-loop

Step 1: Get PR Comments

Capture the snapshot and initialize the ledger (Evidence Ledger Protocol above), then list comments through the target mapped by make.pr_comments; when it is null, the plugin substitutes:

"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/get-pr-comments.sh" --pr "$PR"                   # all comments
"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/get-pr-comments.sh" --pr "$PR" --unresolved-only # threads with resolution state
"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/get-pr-comments.sh" --pr "$PR" --json            # machine-readable

Output: all unresolved comments with file/line, author, timestamp, URL.

Step 2: Categorize Comments

Type	Identifier	Priority	Action
Committable Suggestion	Code block, "```suggestion"	Highest	Apply immediately, commit separately
LLM Prompt	"Prompt for AI Agents"	High	Execute prompt, implement changes
Architecture Concern	Placement, naming, boundary	High	Invoke appropriate skill
Accessibility Concern	ARIA, focus, contrast, role	High	Fix the component; re-audit a11y
Question	Ends with "?"	Medium	Answer inline or via code change
General Feedback	Discussion, recommendation	Low	Consider and improve
Resolved/Stale	Outdated or already fixed	None	Do not change code; record reason

Step 3: Verify Architecture & Organization

For code changes (suggestions, prompts, new files), invoke verification skills:

Concern Type	Skill to Invoke
Component/file placement or naming	code-organization
Module boundary / DI / bulletproof-react	architecture
Layer / import violations	architecture (when the make.lint_deps target fails)
Component / hook / form / MUI shape	frontend-component-development
Accessibility regression	frontend-performance-accessibility

Quick verification: run the target mapped by make.format, then the targets mapped by make.lint_eslint, make.lint_tsc, make.lint_deps, and the narrowest relevant test target (make.test_unit_client, make.test_integration, or make.test_e2e).

Step 4: Apply Changes Systematically

For Committable Suggestions

1. Verify the suggestion still applies to current code

2. Apply the suggestion exactly when it is still valid and compatible with repository rules

3. If the suggestion is stale, implement the current equivalent fix or record why no change is needed (decline evidence)

4. Commit with reference:

   git commit -m "Apply review suggestion: [brief description]
   
   Ref: [comment URL]"
   

For LLM Prompts

1. Copy prompt from comment
2. Verify every finding against current code before changing files
3. Execute still-valid instructions
4. Skip stale, duplicate, or contradicted findings with a brief reason
5. Verify output meets requirements
6. Commit with reference

For Architecture/Organization Concerns

1. Invoke the appropriate skill (code-organization or architecture)
2. Implement recommended changes
3. Verify: the make.format target plus the make.lint_eslint, make.lint_tsc, make.lint_deps, and focused-test targets
4. Commit with reference

For Accessibility Concerns

1. Fix the component itself (semantic role, accessible name, focus order, contrast) — never reach for a data-testid or an aria-* band-aid that hides the defect
2. Re-run the accessibility lane (the target mapped by make.a11y, or the plugin's bundled axe-core / Playwright a11y lane when null); dispatch the accessibility-auditor agent when a live-browser re-audit is warranted
3. Commit with reference

For Questions

1. Determine if code change or reply needed
2. If code: implement + commit
3. If reply: respond on GitHub with EVIDENCE_SOURCE/EVIDENCE_ACTION fields

For General Feedback

1. Evaluate suggestion merit
2. Implement if beneficial
3. Document reasoning if declined (decline evidence with EVIDENCE_REASON)

One commit per comment — never batch unrelated review fixes.

Step 5: Verify All Addressed

Query unresolved review threads directly (paginated; generic GraphQL):

set -euo pipefail
: "${PR:?Set PR to the pull request number}"
: "${PR_REPO:?Set PR_REPO=owner/repo for the base PR repository}"
owner="${PR_REPO%%/*}"
repo="${PR_REPO#*/}"
query='query($owner:String!,$repo:String!,$pr:Int!,$cursor:String){repository(owner:$owner,name:$repo){pullRequest(number:$pr){reviewThreads(first:100,after:$cursor){pageInfo{hasNextPage endCursor} nodes{isResolved comments(first:1){nodes{id}}}}}}}'
total_count=0
cursor=''
while :; do
  if [ -n "$cursor" ]; then
    page_json="$(gh api graphql -f owner="$owner" -f repo="$repo" -F pr="$PR" -f cursor="$cursor" -f query="$query")"
  else
    page_json="$(gh api graphql -f owner="$owner" -f repo="$repo" -F pr="$PR" -f query="$query")"
  fi
  page_count="$(printf '%s\n' "$page_json" | jq '[.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes[] | select(.isResolved == false and (.comments.nodes | length > 0))] | length')"
  total_count=$((total_count + page_count))
  has_next="$(printf '%s\n' "" | jq -r '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.pageInfo.hasNextPage')"
  [  =  ] || 
  cursor=
   -n  &&   != 

  -eq 0

If unresolved comments remain, repeat categorization and implementation. If a remaining thread is stale, duplicate, or answer-only, respond or resolve it with reply/decline evidence before continuing. Then complete the ledger: write PR_HEAD=<sha> plus a COMMENT_META line for every snapshotted comment (all three sources), and one validated COMMENT|url|commit|sha, COMMENT|url|reply|url, or COMMENT|url|decline|url line per COMMENT_META line, following the Evidence Ledger Protocol exactly — including the post-snapshot restart rule.

Step 5b: Publish findings (gated)

When capabilities.publish_pr_comments is true, project the Step 2 priority/disposition categorization and the evidence-ledger dispositions (fixed = commit, dropped = decline/stale) to the canonical ledger JSON (schema in the poster header) at ${SDLC_LEDGER_DIR:-.sdlc/review-ledgers}/code-review.json, then publish ONE consolidated, idempotent PR comment via the target mapped by make.post_review_findings; when that key is null, the plugin substitutes its script (the same null-substitution pattern as make.pr_comments → get-pr-comments.sh in Step 1):

"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/post-review-findings.sh" code-review \
  --file "${SDLC_LEDGER_DIR:-.sdlc/review-ledgers}/code-review.json" --pr "$PR"

The poster is idempotent (hidden <!-- sdlc-review:code-review --> marker — it updates its prior comment, never spams), authorized (writes only to the resolved repo's own PR), and DEGRADES (NFR-3): capabilities.publish_pr_comments false/absent, gh absent, no PR, an empty ledger, a mismatched base repo, or a gh write failure all skip-with-note and exit 0 — publishing NEVER fails this workflow. When the flag is false/absent, skip this step with a note.

Step 6: Run Quality Checks

MANDATORY: run the target mapped by make.ci after implementing all changes; it must exit 0. Many repositories print a success banner — treat exit status as the contract, the banner as confirmation:

CI_OUTPUT="$(make ci 2>&1)"
printf '%s\n' "$CI_OUTPUT"
CI_LAST_LINE="$(printf '%s\n' "$CI_OUTPUT" | sed '/^[[:space:]]*$/d' | tail -n 1)"
test "$CI_LAST_LINE" = "✅ CI checks successfully passed!"

Suppression scan — after CI, scan the PR diff for forbidden suppression or ignore directives. Fix root causes; never silence tools:

command -v rg >/dev/null || { echo "rg is required for suppression scan" >&2; exit 1; }
set -o pipefail
diff_output="$(git diff --unified=0 "$TRUSTED_BASE_REF"...HEAD)" || {
  echo "Unable to compute PR diff for suppression scan" >&2
  exit 1
}

forbidden_suppression_pattern() {
  printf '%s\n' 'eslint-''disable|@ts-''ignore|@ts-''expect-error|@ts-''nocheck|prettier-''ignore|markdownlint-''disable|editorconfig-checker-''disable|editorconfig-''disable|jscpd:''ignore|istanbul ''ignore|Stryker ''disable|depcruise-''disable'
}

if printf '%s\n' "$diff_output" | rg '^\+[^+]' | rg -n "$(forbidden_suppression_pattern)"; then
  echo "Forbidden suppression/ignore directive found in PR diff" >&2
  exit 1
fi

# Gate-definition isolation: detect whether this is a dedicated
# gate-definition PR (only gate-definition files changed vs the trusted
# base). When so, the quality-config hard block is skipped — those changes
# are the legitimate subject of the PR and are reviewed on their own (see
# the Gate-definition isolation rule below). The forbidden-suppression line

GATE_DEFINITION_FILE_PATTERN=
all_changes=
gate_definition_changes=
non_gate_definition_changes=
GATE_DEFINITION_CHANGES_PRESENT=
 [ -n  ] && [ -z  ]; 
  GATE_DEFINITION_CHANGES_PRESENT=


quality_config_changes=
 [ -n  ] && [  !=  ]; 
    
    >&2
   1

On a dedicated gate-definition PR (GATE_DEFINITION_CHANGES_PRESENT=true, i.e. only gate-definition files changed vs $TRUSTED_BASE_REF) the quality-config hard block is skipped so the PR can legitimately tighten quality-tool configs, while the forbidden-suppression line scan still runs and any threshold change must be raise-only (see Thresholds below). A PR that mixes gate-definition and product changes does not qualify and is blocked.

Gate-definition isolation rule: changes to CI/review gate definitions (Makefile, CI workflow files, ESLint/TypeScript/jscpd/dependency-cruiser/rca configs, stryker.config.mjs, the Lighthouse configs, the Jest/Playwright configs, formatter configs, review scripts, agent skill files, required-check declarations) must never piggyback on a product PR. They belong in a dedicated gate-definition PR with no product, runtime, or unrelated test-code changes, reviewed on its own. A product PR must not validate itself against gate definitions it supplies.

Thresholds come from quality.* in the profile and are raise-only (canonical floors: quality.coverage_statements 100, quality.coverage_branches 100, quality.coverage_functions 100, quality.coverage_lines 100, quality.mutation_msi seeded from stryker.config.mjs break, quality.lighthouse_desktop 95, quality.lighthouse_mobile 85; fixed ceilings: quality.jscpd_clones 0, quality.eslint_errors 0, quality.eslint_warnings 0, quality.tsc_errors 0, quality.markdownlint_errors 0, quality.depcruise_violations 0, quality.visual_diffs 0; quality.metrics_enforced stays true — the rca hard-fail policy lives in config/metrics-policy.json). A profile may tighten these floors, never relax them. Fix the code, never the threshold.

If CI fails, invoke the appropriate skill:

Failure Type	Re-run via	Skill to Use
Module boundary / import	make.lint_deps target	architecture
Complexity / rca metrics	make.lint_metrics target	complexity-management
ESLint / TypeScript / markdown	make.lint_eslint / make.lint_tsc / make.lint_md	frontend-quality-workflow
Duplication (jscpd)	make.lint_dup target	frontend-quality-workflow
Unit / integration / E2E tests	make.test_unit_client / make.test_integration / make.test_e2e	frontend-testing-workflow
Mutation testing	make.test_mutation / make.merge_mutation_reports	frontend-testing-workflow
Visual regression	make.test_visual target	frontend-testing-workflow
Lighthouse / accessibility	make.lighthouse_desktop / make.lighthouse_mobile / make.a11y	frontend-performance-accessibility
Component / hook / MUI shape	-	frontend-component-development
Formatting	make.format target	-

DO NOT finish the task until the make.ci target exits 0.

Step 7: Run Final AI Review Loop

After the final successful CI run, capture CI_HEAD="$(git rev-parse HEAD)" and run the AI review loop again (same invocation as Step 0, diff base $TRUSTED_BASE_REF) before any push or ready-for-review action. Then assert:

test "$CI_HEAD" = "$(git rev-parse HEAD)"
test -z "$(git status --short)"
VERIFIED_HEAD="$CI_HEAD"
CURRENT_BASE_JSON="$(gh pr view "$PR" --repo "$PR_REPO" --json baseRefName,baseRefOid)"
test "$BASE_OID" = "$(printf '%s\n' "$CURRENT_BASE_JSON" | jq -r .baseRefOid)"
test "$BASE_REF" = "$(printf '%s\n' "$CURRENT_BASE_JSON" | jq -r .baseRefName)"

If the loop applies fixes or changes any tracked file, repeat:

1. Review git status --short
2. Commit intentional tracked changes with the relevant review or AI-loop reference
3. Re-run the make.ci target
4. Re-run the forbidden-suppression and quality-config scans
5. Re-capture CI_HEAD="$(git rev-parse HEAD)"
6. Re-run the loop and require AI_REVIEW_VERDICT: PASS

Before the final loop, write PR_HEAD=<CI_HEAD> plus generated COMMENT_META lines into PR_COMMENT_EVIDENCE, then add one validated COMMENT|... evidence line per COMMENT_META line. After the final loop, git rev-parse HEAD must still equal the captured CI_HEAD, git status --short must be empty, and the current PR baseRefName and baseRefOid must still equal the BASE_REF and BASE_OID captured before CI. Set VERIFIED_HEAD="$CI_HEAD" only after those checks pass. Step 8 reruns this local gate and recomputes VERIFIED_HEAD before pushing — caller-supplied VERIFIED_HEAD/BASE_OID values are never trusted as proof. Do not push, mark ready, or declare completion until the loop reports PASS on the same commit and base that passed CI without leaving new uncommitted changes. If the loop cannot be run at all, completion is blocked.

Step 8: Push And Verify GitHub PR Readiness

8a. Rerun the local readiness gate on a clean worktree (recompute, don't trust earlier variables): assert git status --short is empty → run the make.ci target (exit 0) → capture LOCAL_HEAD → rewrite ledger metadata (PR_HEAD, fresh COMMENT_META lines from a fresh enumeration of all three comment sources, preserving existing COMMENT lines) → validate every evidence line → run the AI review loop (PASS) → assert HEAD unchanged, worktree clean, and PR base (baseRefName/baseRefOid) unchanged. Set VERIFIED_HEAD="$LOCAL_HEAD".

8b. Push to the actual PR head repository (fork-aware):

test "$(git rev-parse HEAD)" = "$VERIFIED_HEAD"
LOCAL_HEAD="$VERIFIED_HEAD"
HEAD_REF="$(gh pr view "$PR" --repo "$PR_REPO" --json headRefName --jq .headRefName)"
PR_HEAD_REPO="$(gh pr view "$PR" --repo "$PR_REPO" --json headRepository --jq .headRepository.nameWithOwner)"
CURRENT_REPO="$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner --jq .nameWithOwner)"
if [ "$PR_HEAD_REPO" = "$CURRENT_REPO" ]; then
  git push origin HEAD:"$HEAD_REF"
else
  if git remote get-url pr-head >/dev/null 2>&1; then
    git remote set-url pr-head "[e-mail]:${PR_HEAD_REPO}.git"
  else
    git remote add pr-head "[e-mail]:${PR_HEAD_REPO}.git"
  fi
  git push pr-head HEAD:"$HEAD_REF"
fi
PR_HEAD="$(gh pr view "$PR" --repo "$PR_REPO" --json headRefOid --jq .headRefOid)"
test "$LOCAL_HEAD" = ""

8c. Wait for checks (skip with a degrade note when ci.provider is null):

gh pr checks "$PR" --repo "$PR_REPO" --watch --interval 30

8d. Verify the commit-scoped check rollup on the pushed head, queried from the base PR repository (never the fork). Paginate statusCheckRollup.contexts(first:100) on the commit object:

query='query($owner:String!,$repo:String!,$oid:GitObjectID!,$cursor:String){repository(owner:$owner,name:$repo){object(oid:$oid){... on Commit{statusCheckRollup{contexts(first:100,after:$cursor){pageInfo{hasNextPage endCursor} nodes{__typename ... on CheckRun{name conclusion status detailsUrl checkSuite{app{slug}}} ... on StatusContext{context state targetUrl creator{login}}}}}}}}}'

Normalize each node to {type, name, state, source, url} (CheckRun → check_run with checkSuite.app.slug as source; StatusContext → status_context with creator.login as source), then assert:

• The rollup is non-empty; an empty or incomplete check list is a blocker

• Every context has an allowed terminal state: jq -e 'length > 0 and all(.[]; .state | IN("SUCCESS", "SKIPPED", "NEUTRAL"))'

• Every check named in the profile ci.required_checks list is present with state SUCCESS on this exact commit

• Every live base-branch protection required status/check is present with state SUCCESS — query the protection rule and compare:

  branch_query='query($owner:String!,$repo:String!,$baseRefName:String!){repository(owner:$owner,name:$repo){ref(qualifiedName:$baseRefName){branchProtectionRule{requiredStatusCheckContexts requiredStatusChecks{context app{slug}}}}}}'
  

• GitHub Actions check detailsUrl values start with https://github.com/<PR_REPO>/actions/runs/ — checks pointing at another repository are not trusted

8e. Verify a qualifying approval on the pushed head. Paginate pullRequest.reviews(first:100) selecting {url state submittedAt author{login} authorAssociation commit{oid}} and require at least one review where:

state == "APPROVED"
commit.oid == LOCAL_HEAD
author.login != PR author
authorAssociation in (OWNER, MEMBER, COLLABORATOR)
submittedAt > latest addressed-comment/evidence event time

The "latest evidence event" is the maximum effective time across all ledger source comments and their commit/reply/decline evidence.

8f. Poll the final readiness predicate (retry up to 30 times, 10s apart):

gh pr view "$PR" --repo "$PR_REPO" --json state,mergeStateStatus,mergeable,reviewDecision,isDraft,reviewRequests,headRefOid,baseRefOid,baseRefName |
jq -e --arg head "$LOCAL_HEAD" --arg base "$BASE_OID" --arg base_ref "$BASE_REF" '
  .headRefOid == $head and
  .baseRefOid == $base and
  .baseRefName == $base_ref and
  .state == "OPEN" and
  .isDraft == false and
  .mergeable == "MERGEABLE" and
  (.mergeStateStatus | IN("CLEAN", "HAS_HOOKS")) and
  .reviewDecision == "APPROVED" and
  ([.reviewRequests[]?] | length) == 0
'

8g. Re-verify after the wait — checks and reviews can change while polling, so run the full set again on the same pushed head: unresolved-thread query shows 0, ledger evidence still validates (review-thread and non-thread sources), no unaccounted post-snapshot comments (only validated evidence URLs and a qualifying empty/FINAL_APPROVAL_NO_ACTION: true approval are allowed), required checks still SUCCESS, approval still present, readiness predicate still true. If anything regressed, return to the failing step.

Required state:

• PR headRefOid equals local HEAD before and after waiting for checks
• PR baseRefName and baseRefOid still equal the BASE_REF/BASE_OID used for CI, the suppression scan, the final AI review loop, and the branch-protection query
• Commit-scoped status/check rollup queried from the base PR repository is non-empty; non-required contexts only SUCCESS, SKIPPED, or NEUTRAL
• Every ci.required_checks entry and every live base-branch protection required status/check is SUCCESS on the pushed head; GitHub Actions check URLs point at the base PR repository
• Final direct review-thread query after pushed-head verification shows 0 unresolved review comments
• PR_COMMENT_EVIDENCE records the auto-captured snapshot, PR_HEAD, validated COMMENT_META lines, and validated COMMENT|url|action|evidence lines for every snapshotted comment from all three sources
• No non-evidence comments created/edited after the snapshot (or the snapshot/evidence loop was restarted), modulo the qualifying-approval exception
• state OPEN, isDraft false, mergeable MERGEABLE, mergeStateStatus CLEAN/HAS_HOOKS, reviewDecision APPROVED, reviewRequests empty
• Direct review query shows a qualifying APPROVED review per 8e

Constraints (Parameters)

NEVER:

• Skip the autonomous AI review loop (make.ai_review_loop target or plugin script)
• Skip committable suggestions
• Batch unrelated changes in one commit
• Ignore LLM prompts from reviewers
• Apply stale or invalid review suggestions blindly
• Commit without running verification
• Leave questions unanswered
• Accept organizational violations (invoke code-organization)
• Accept architecture violations (invoke architecture)
• Add suppression/ignore annotations (an ESLint disable, a TypeScript ignore, a Prettier/markdownlint/editorconfig disable, a jscpd or Stryker ignore marker, or a dependency-cruiser per-rule exclusion) to "fix" review comments or CI failures
• Weaken a TypeScript type, add a data-testid, or update a visual snapshot without inspecting the diff to make a finding disappear
• Lower any quality.* threshold or edit eslint.config.mjs, config/metrics-policy.json, stryker.config.mjs, .jscpd.json, or the dependency-cruiser config to make findings disappear — thresholds are raise-only, fix the code instead
• Finish before the make.ci target exits 0
• Finish when the AI review loop was not run after the final CI run
• Finish while git status --short reports uncommitted changes after the final AI review loop
• Finish while local HEAD differs from the PR headRefOid
• Finish while GitHub reports failing checks, conflicts, draft status, requested changes (when review.request_changes_blocking is true), required review, or a blocking merge state

ALWAYS:

• Run the AI review loop before manually addressing PR comments and again after the final CI run, before push/ready
• Verify review findings against current code before applying them
• Commit each suggestion separately with URL reference
• Invoke code-organization for structural issues and architecture for module-boundary / DI violations; route a confirmed code fix to the react-implementer agent
• Run the make.ci target after implementing all changes
• Scan the PR diff for forbidden suppression/ignore directives and blocked quality-config changes
• Push and verify PR headRefOid equals local HEAD
• Check gh pr checks and gh pr view after pushing
• Address ALL CI failures before finishing
• Mark conversations resolved after addressing

Format (Output)

Commit Message Template:

Apply review suggestion: [concise description]

[Optional: explanation if non-obvious]

Ref: https://github.com/<owner>/<repo>/pull/XX#discussion_rYYYYYYY

Final Verification:

✅ direct GitHub GraphQL review-thread query shows 0 unresolved
✅ make.ci target exits 0
✅ final AI review loop reports AI_REVIEW_VERDICT: PASS after CI
✅ git status --short is empty after the final loop
✅ PR baseRefName/baseRefOid still match the base used for CI, the final loop, and the branch-protection query
✅ local HEAD matches the PR headRefOid
✅ base-repository check rollup: non-empty, no disallowed non-required states, every ci.required_checks entry and live branch-protection check SUCCESS, Actions URLs in the base repo
✅ final review-thread query after pushed-head verification shows 0 unresolved
✅ PR_COMMENT_EVIDENCE has auto-captured snapshot metadata, pushed HEAD, comment updatedAt/body hashes, and validated trusted-author action/evidence for every snapshotted comment URL
✅ no non-evidence comments created/edited after the snapshot (qualifying approval exception only)
✅ gh pr view shows OPEN, no conflicts, not draft, mergeStateStatus CLEAN/HAS_HOOKS, reviewDecision APPROVED, no reviewRequests
✅ direct review query shows an APPROVED review on the pushed HEAD, submitted after the latest evidence event, by a non-author OWNER/MEMBER/COLLABORATOR reviewer

Verification Checklist

• Initial AI review loop run against the trusted PR base
• All PR comments retrieved (make.pr_comments target or plugin script)
• Snapshot captured automatically; ledger initialized
• Comments categorized by type (suggestion/prompt/architecture/a11y/question/feedback)
• Stale or duplicate comments recorded with concrete reasons (decline evidence)
• Architecture verified using appropriate skills
• make.lint_deps target passes (quality.depcruise_violations = 0)
• Committable suggestions applied and committed separately
• LLM prompts executed and implemented
• Accessibility concerns fixed in the component and re-audited (make.a11y)
• Questions answered (code or reply evidence)
• General feedback evaluated and addressed
• make.ci target exits 0
• PR diff scanned for forbidden suppression/ignore directives and quality-config changes
• Final AI review loop reports PASS after CI, on the same commit
• git status --short empty after the final loop
• PR base unchanged since the gated CI run
• Direct review-thread query shows zero unresolved
• Ledger complete and validated for every snapshotted comment (all three sources)
• No unaccounted post-snapshot comments
• Local HEAD pushed and equal to PR

Quick Reference: When to Use Related Skills

Issue	Skill to Use
Component/file in wrong directory	code-organization
Vague naming	code-organization
Module-boundary / DI violations	architecture
dependency-cruiser failures	architecture
Complexity / rca metrics too high	complexity-management
Test or mutation failures	frontend-testing-workflow
Lint / type / markdown / duplication	frontend-quality-workflow
Component / hook / MUI shape	frontend-component-development
Lighthouse / accessibility regressions	frontend-performance-accessibility
Quality standards	quality-standards

Related Skills

• code-organization — directory/type and naming conventions (bulletproof-react placement, UI* prefix, type-only files)
• architecture — module boundaries, tsyringe DI seams, dependency-cruiser layers, path-alias rules
• complexity-management — reduces cyclomatic/cognitive complexity against the rust-code-analysis gate
• frontend-component-development — React components, hooks, forms, and MUI/Emotion shape
• frontend-testing-workflow — Jest/Testing Library, Playwright E2E/visual, and Stryker mutation coverage
• frontend-quality-workflow — formatting, ESLint, TypeScript, markdown, jscpd, and metrics
• frontend-performance-accessibility — Lighthouse, web-vitals, and accessibility
• quality-standards — overall quality metrics and thresholds
• ci-workflow — comprehensive CI checks