git-pr-feedback

## Context - Repo: !`git remote -v` - Current branch: !`git branch --show-current` - Git status: !`git status --porcelain=v2 --branch` ## Parameters Parse these parameters from the command (all optional): | Parameter | Description | |-----------|-------------| | `$1` | PR number (if omitted, use PR of current branch; if no such PR, list actionable PRs). Mutually exclusive with `--all`. | | `--commit` | Create commit(s) after addressing feedback. | | `--push` | Push changes after committing (implies `--commit`). | | `--all` | Address feedback on every actionable open PR. Dispatches one subagent per PR in an isolated worktree; the orchestrator pushes, replies, and resolves. Implies `--commit --push` unless `--dry-run` is set. Mutually exclusive with `$1`. | | `--dry-run` | With `--all`, print the dispatch plan and stop — no subagents spawned, no commits, no pushes. Ignored without `--all`. | | `--limit N` | Maximum concurrent subagents under `--all` (default `3`). Use a small number to stay under GitHub rate limits and avoid API rate-limit cascades from many concurrent subagents — the hazard bites 1M-context sessions, which on Fable is every session, since 1M is its default window (see [`skill-fork-context.md`](../../../.claude/rules/skill-fork-context.md)). | | `--include-automation` | With `--all`, also surface automation-authored PRs (release-please, dependabot, renovate, `*[bot]`, `*-bot`). Excluded by default because they carry no human review feedback and their CI failures are resolved by automation re-running, not hand edits. | **Mode selection**: | Mode | Triggered when | Flow | |------|----------------|------| | Single-PR | No `--all` | Steps 1–7 below operate on one PR. | | Multi-PR | `--all` is passed | **Step 1A** dispatches subagents; the orchestrator finalises (push, reply, resolve, re-request) and writes a combined summary. Skip Steps 1–6. | If both `$1` and `--all` are given, error and stop with: `--all is mutually exclusive with a PR number argument.` ## When to Use This Skill | Use this skill when... | Use another skill instead when... | |------------------------|----------------------------------| | A PR has reviewer comments to address | CI checks are failing with no review comments -> use `git-fix-pr` | | You need to systematically work through review feedback | You're creating a new PR -> use `git-commit-push-pr` | | A reviewer has requested changes | You want to understand PR workflow patterns -> use `git-branch-pr-workflow` | ## Your Task Review PR workflow results and reviewer comments, then address substantive feedback. For feedback categorization, decision trees, commit format, and report templates, see [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md). --- ### Step 1: Determine PR and Gather All Data > If `--all` is set, **skip this step** and jump to **Step 1A: Multi-PR Mode** below. 1. **Parse owner/repo** from the git remote URL. 2. **Resolve the PR number** in this order: 1. If `$1` was provided, use it. 2. Otherwise, try the PR for the current branch: ```bash gh pr view --json number -q '.number' ``` 3. If step 2 fails (no PR for the branch) **or** the command is on a detached/default branch, fall back to listing actionable PRs: ```bash bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/list-actionable-prs.sh <owner> <repo> ``` The script emits a JSON array of open, non-draft PRs that have unresolved review threads, failing/errored CI, or `CHANGES_REQUESTED`. Handle the result as follows: | Result | Action | |--------|--------| | Empty array | Report "No PRs need attention." and stop. | | One entry | Use that PR number and continue. | | Multiple entries | Print a compact table (number, author, CI, unresolved, reviewDecision, title) ordered as returned, then stop and instruct the user to re-run `/git:pr-feedback <number>`. Do **not** guess which PR they meant. | 3. **Switch to PR branch** if not already on it: ```bash gh pr view $PR --json headRefName -q '.headRefName' git switch <branch-name> git pull origin <branch-name> ``` 4. **Fetch ALL PR data** using the bundled script (single GraphQL query): ```bash bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/fetch-pr-data.sh <owner> <repo> <pr-number> ``` 5. **For failed checks only**, fetch detailed logs: ```bash gh run view $RUN_ID --log-failed ``` | Check Status | Action | |--------------|--------| | All passing | Skip to Step 2 | | Failed CI | Get logs with `gh run view`, may need fixes | | Pending | Note status, focus on comments | If the GraphQL query fails with a rate limit error, wait 60 seconds and retry once. --- ### Step 1A: Multi-PR Mode (--all) Reached only when `--all` is passed. The orchestrator dispatches one subagent per actionable PR; subagents commit inside isolated worktrees but never push. The orchestrator handles all GitHub-side mutations. 1. **Parse owner/repo** from the git remote URL. 2. **List actionable PRs** with the bundled selector (append `--include-automation` if that flag was passed): ```bash bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/list-actionable-prs.sh <owner> <repo> ``` The script returns a JSON array of open, non-draft PRs with unresolved review threads, failing/errored CI, or `CHANGES_REQUESTED`. Automation-authored PRs (release-please, dependabot, renovate, `*[bot]`, `*-bot`) are excluded by default — dispatching a subagent on one is almost always wrong (no review threads to act on, protected changelog/version files). Pass `--include-automation` to include them, or set `PR_FEEDBACK_AUTOMATION_AUTHORS` to extend the recognised author list. If the array is empty, report `No PRs need attention.` and stop. 3. **Print a compact dispatch table** (number, author, ci, unresolved, reviewDecision, head, title) so the user can see what is about to be processed. 4. **`--dry-run` short-circuit**: if `--dry-run` was also passed, additionally print the per-PR subagent prompt that *would* be dispatched (one per row, using the template in [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) "Multi-PR Subagent Prompt"), then stop. No subagents spawn, no commits, no pushes. 5. **Dispatch subagents**, capped at `--limit N` concurrent (default `3`). For each PR call the `Task` tool with: - `subagent_type: "general-purpose"` - `isolation: "worktree"` — each subagent gets its own git worktree - `description`: `Address review feedback for PR #<n>` - `prompt`: see [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) "Multi-PR Subagent Prompt" for the canonical template. The prompt must instruct the subagent to switch its worktree to the PR's `headRefName`, run the single-PR feedback flow with `--commit` (not `--push`), and return a structured JSON summary. Dispatch one batch of `N` `Task` calls in a single message (per the parallel-dispatch contract). When all return, dispatch the next batch until the queue is empty. 6. **Collect subagent results**. Each subagent returns JSON with: `pr`, `branch`, `worktree_path`, `commits[]`, `addressed[]` (each with `thread_id`, `database_id`, `action`, `reply`, `resolve`), `deferred_issues[]`, `co_authors[]`, `blockers[]`. Treat any subagent that fails to return parseable JSON as blocked — record its raw output and continue with the rest of the batch. 7. **Orchestrator finalisation** — for each PR with successful commits, run sequentially (push and the GitHub mutation tools share the same rate-limit pool): 1. `git push origin <branch>` from the **main checkout** — worktrees share the underlying `.git/`, so commits made by the subagent are already visible by branch name. No `cd` into the subagent's worktree is required. 2. Capture the resolving SHA (`git rev-parse origin/<branch>` after the push). 3. For each `addressed[]` entry, post the reply via `mcp__github__add_reply_to_pull_request_comment`, substituting the resolving SHA into any `{{SHA}}` placeholder the subagent left in the reply text. 4. Resolve threads via the GraphQL `resolveReviewThread` mutation per Step 6's rules. Resolution is the default after a reply — only skip when the subagent set `resolve: false` for a documented exception (follow-up question, partial fix, reviewer asked to keep open, or a third-party PR without user approval). Treat any `resolve: true` paired with a successful reply as a mandatory call. Use: ```bash gh api graphql -f query='mutation($id:ID!){resolveReviewThread(input:{threadId:$id}){thread{isResolved}}}' -F id="$THREAD_ID" ``` 5. Re-request review per Step 5a's rules. 8. **Skip Steps 2–6**. Go directly to **Step 7** with a combined summary that includes a per-PR section plus a top-level rollup: dispatched, succeeded, blocked, total threads resolved, total commits pushed. #### Failure handling | Subagent state | Orchestrator action | |----------------|---------------------| | Returned valid JSON, has commits, no blockers | Push + reply + resolve as above | | Returned valid JSON, no commits (only questions / declined nitpicks) | Skip push; still post replies and resolve declined nitpick threads | | Returned valid JSON, has `blockers[]` | Surface in the summary; do **not** push partial work — let the user decide | | Failed to return parseable JSON | Surface its raw output in the summary as `blocked: parse-error`; do nothing further for that PR | | Reported a merge conflict on `git pull --ff-only` | Surface in the summary as `blocked: branch-out-of-sync`; user resolves manually | A blocked subagent does not abort the whole batch; the orchestrator continues with the others. --- ### Step 2: Analyze Feedback Categorize all comments from the GraphQL response (see [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) for category definitions): 1. Skip any thread where `isResolved: true` or `isOutdated: true` — already handled. 2. Categorize each remaining comment as Blocking, Substantive, Suggestion, Question, or Nitpick. 3. For each actionable comment, capture: thread `id`, top-level comment `databaseId`, file, line, scope, and whether the body contains a ` ```suggestion ` block. 4. Track one item per actionable thread, including the thread `id` and `databaseId` so Steps 3–5 can reply and resolve — via `TodoWrite` when the session has the task tools (see `.claude/rules/agentic-permissions.md` § Task-tool availability), otherwise as a checklist you keep in the response. --- ### Step 3: Address Feedback **Verify before accepting — especially claims from an automated reviewer.** Before accepting or acting on any suggestion, independently verify the claim against the actual source, the live system, or upstream documentation. This matters most for automated reviewers (Gemini Code Assist, Copilot, and other bot authors), whose suggestions are frequently confidently-wrong: read the code/config the claim is about, check the rendered/live behaviour, and confirm against docs rather than applying a bot suggestion on trust. A claim that fails verification is **refuted** — reply with the refutation and the supporting evidence, and do **not** change the code. A written refutation with evidence is a legitimate way to resolve a thread (see Step 6). Work through actionable items systematically. For each thread, decide using the table below — see [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) for the full decision tree. | Comment shape | Action | |---------------|--------| | Contains a ` ```suggestion ` block, fix is correct | **Accept the suggestion**: apply the suggestion's exact replacement to the file (see [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) "Accepting Suggestions"). Record the comment author's `login` and `name`/`email` for co-author attribution in Step 4. | | Contains a ` ```suggestion ` block, fix needs adjustment | Implement an improved variant; explain the deviation in the reply. Record the suggester for co-author attribution. | | Inline code comment without suggestion | Read context, implement fix, verify no regressions | | Claim that verification refutes (wrong on the facts) | **Refuted**: do not change the code. Reply with the refutation and the evidence that disproves it (the source line, rendered config, live behaviour, or doc that contradicts the claim), then resolve. Apply this whenever a bot/automated-reviewer suggestion does not survive verification. | | Question / clarification | Skip code change; draft an inline reply for Step 4 | | Blocking review (`REQUEST_CHANGES`) | Address every concern before resolving any thread | | Failed CI check | Identify failure type (lint/type/test/build), fix locally, run to verify | | Out-of-scope feedback | Do not implement in this PR. Open a follow-up issue (see Step 3a) and reference its number in the reply. | Mark each item in progress while working it and done once the file change (if any) lands locally. Do **not** resolve threads yet — replies and resolution happen after the commit so reviewers see the linked SHA. ### Step 3a: File follow-up issues for out-of-scope feedback For any thread categorised as out-of-scope (or where the user opts to defer rather than implement now): 1. Draft a one-line title and short body that quotes the reviewer comment and links the PR thread URL. 2. Use `mcp__github__issue_write` (action `create`) or `gh issue create -R <owner>/<repo> --title "<title>" --body "<body>"` to file the issue. 3. Capture the returned issue number — Step 6's reply uses it (`Deferred to #<n> — <reason>.`). Skip this step if the user has explicitly said not to file follow-ups. When ambiguous, ask via `AskUserQuestion` before creating an issue. --- ### Step 4: Commit Changes (if --commit or --push) Group related fixes into logical commits — one commit per logical group of accepted suggestions, not one per suggestion. See [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) for commit message format. For any commit that contains an **accepted (or adapted) suggestion**, append a `Co-authored-by:` trailer for each unique suggester. This mirrors GitHub's "Commit suggestion" / "Add suggestion to batch" behaviour, which credits the suggester as co-author. See [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) "Co-author Attribution" for how to construct the trailer line and resolve the suggester's email. Run pre-commit hooks if configured, then stage any formatter changes. ### Step 5: Push Changes (if --push) ```bash git push origin HEAD ``` ### Step 5a: Re-request Review (if --push) After a successful push that addresses substantive feedback, re-request review from any reviewer whose threads were resolved or who left a `CHANGES_REQUESTED` review. Skip this step when only nitpicks or questions were addressed. Determine reviewers to re-request from the GraphQL response captured in Step 1: - `latestReviews` entries with `state == "CHANGES_REQUESTED"` - Authors of any review thread you resolved in Step 6 Then call: ```bash gh api -X POST \ /repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<pr>/requested_reviewers \ -f 'reviewers[]=<login1>' \ -f 'reviewers[]=<login2>' ``` If `gh api` returns 422 ("Reviews may only be requested from collaborators"), the reviewer cannot be re-requested via the API — note it in the Step 7 summary and continue. ### Step 6: Reply and Resolve Threads For every actionable thread tracked in Step 2, post a reply and then **resolve the thread by default**. Owner/repo/PR are the same values used in Step 1. Resolving is the default action after replying — leaving threads open is the exception, reserved for the explicit cases listed in step 3. A reply alone does **not** end the conversation in GitHub's UI: the thread stays in the reviewer's "unresolved" queue until someone clicks **Resolve conversation**. Without this step the PR will continue to show unresolved feedback even after every concern has been addressed.