review-coderabbit

name	review-coderabbit
description	Review CodeRabbit comments on current PR and implement valid fixes
allowed-tools	Bash(gh pr view:*), Bash(gh api:*), Bash(git rev-parse:*), Bash(git status), Bash(pnpm type-check), Bash(pnpm lint), Task, Read, Edit, Glob, Grep, TodoWrite

Review CodeRabbit Comments

I have gathered information about the current PR. Here are the results:

<current_branch> !git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD </current_branch>

<pr_info> !gh pr view --json number,title,url 2>/dev/null || echo "No PR found for current branch" </pr_info>

<coderabbit_review> !gh pr view --json reviews --jq '.reviews[] | select(.author.login == "coderabbitai") | .body' 2>/dev/null | head -500 </coderabbit_review>

<coderabbit_comments> !gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/$(gh pr view --json number -q .number)/comments --jq '.[] | select(.user.login == "coderabbitai") | {id: .id, path: .path, line: .line, body: (.body | split("\n")[0:3] | join("\n"))}' 2>/dev/null </coderabbit_comments>

Instructions

Step 1: Parse CodeRabbit Feedback

1. Extract actionable comments from the CodeRabbit review above
2. Categorize them into:
   • Code quality issues (type assertions, unclear code)
   • Accessibility issues (missing aria-labels, decorative icons)
   • Design system issues (inconsistent classes, hardcoded values)
   • Bug risks (type safety, null checks)

Step 2: Validate Each Comment

For each substantive comment, spawn a subagent to analyze it in isolation:

Use Task tool with subagent_type="general-purpose" for each comment:
- Read the actual file and relevant context
- Check if the suggestion aligns with project conventions (CLAUDE.md)
- Determine verdict: VALID, INVALID, or PARTIALLY VALID
- If partially valid, note what's correct and what's not

Launch multiple agents in parallel for efficiency.

Step 3: Summarize Findings

Create a summary table:

Comment	File	Verdict	Recommendation
...	...	...	...

Categorize into:

• Should fix - Valid suggestions aligned with project guidelines
• Skip - Invalid or overly defensive suggestions
• Needs decision - Valid but requires user input on approach

Step 4: Ask for Confirmation

Before implementing, ask the user:

"I found X valid fixes to implement. Would you like me to proceed?"

Step 5: Implement Valid Fixes

1. Create a todo list with all fixes
2. Read each file before editing
3. Make the edits
4. Run verification:

   pnpm type-check && pnpm lint
   

Step 6: Resolve CodeRabbit Conversations

After implementing fixes, reply to each CodeRabbit comment to resolve the conversation:

For FIXED comments - Reply indicating the fix was applied:

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments/{comment_id}/replies \
  -f body="Fixed: [brief description of what was done]"

For INVALID comments - Reply explaining why it was already correct or not applicable:

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments/{comment_id}/replies \
  -f body="Already implemented: [explanation] / Not applicable: [reason]"

For SKIPPED comments - Reply explaining why it was intentionally skipped:

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments/{comment_id}/replies \
  -f body="Skipped: [reason - e.g., inconsistent with codebase patterns, over-defensive, etc.]"

Use the comment IDs from the <coderabbit_comments> section above.

Project Guidelines Reference

Key rules from CLAUDE.md to check against:

• NO any, enum, or type assertions (as T)
• Use tryCatch() from @/lib/tryCatch (not native try/catch)
• Use RouteNames from @/router (not string literals)
• Features cannot import other features
• shadcn-vue components in src/components/ui/ must NOT be modified
• Vue 3.5+ APIs required (defineProps destructuring, defineModel, useTemplateRef)