fix-review

name	fix-review
description	Analyze and apply unresolved PR review comment fixes. Use when user provides a GitHub PR URL with review comments to address, or asks to fix PR feedback.

Fix PR Review Comments

Process unresolved review comments from $1, categorize validity, apply approved fixes.

Arguments

• PR-URL (required) — GitHub PR URL, e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123
• --auto — non-interactive: auto-apply valid fixes, skip questionable, auto-commit

Phase 1: Fetch & Analyze

In interactive mode, start with EnterPlanMode and remain in plan mode through Phase 2.

1. Extract PR Info

OWNER=$(sed 's|.*github.com/\([^/]*\)/.*|\1|' <<< "$1")
REPO=$(sed 's|.*github.com/[^/]*/\([^/]*\)/.*|\1|' <<< "$1")
PR=$(sed 's|.*/pull/\([0-9]*\).*|\1|' <<< "$1")

2. Fetch Unresolved Review Threads

Read references/templates.md for the GraphQL query and response filtering.

3. Categorize Each Comment

Read references/examples.md in full before categorizing — contains criteria definitions, validation gates, and few-shot examples.

For each comment, reason explicitly:

1. What does reviewer request?         → [extract specific request]
2. What code does it reference?        → [verify in diff via Read]
3. Is suggestion technically correct?  → [validate against language/framework]
4. Does similar code exist?            → [Grep codebase]
5. Would change break functionality?   → [trace execution path]
6. Is defensive code already present?  → [check guards/validation]

Conclusion: Valid/Invalid/Questionable because [specific reason]

Language context: Go → Effective Go, error handling, concurrency; Python → PEP 8, type hints; Rust → API Guidelines, ownership; TypeScript → type safety; Bash → Google Shell Style Guide.

Phase 2: Present Findings

Read the presentation format in references/templates.md and use it to group findings by category.

Phase 3: Get User Decisions (interactive only)

Skip this phase when --auto is passed.

Call ExitPlanMode, then for each questionable comment use AskUserQuestion with these option types:

• Style choices: a) Apply reviewer's style b) Keep current style c) Standardize across file
• Ambiguous requests: a) Apply literal interpretation b) Apply inferred intent c) Skip and reply to reviewer
• Trade-off decisions: a) Apply change (accept trade-off) b) Skip (keep current behavior)

Add to valid or skip based on response.

Phase 4: Apply Fixes

For each approved fix, verify against validation gates in references/examples.md, then:

1. Use Edit to apply the change
2. Continue to next fix — do NOT stage or commit yet

After all edits:

git status
git diff

# Run tests (non-blocking)
npm test 2>/dev/null || pytest 2>/dev/null || go test ./... 2>/dev/null || cargo test 2>/dev/null || true

Auto mode only — commit after valid fixes applied:

git add .
git commit -s -S -m "fix: address PR review comments"

Phase 5: Summary

Summary: Fixed N/M unresolved review comments

Applied:   ✓ N valid fixes across K files
Skipped:   ? X questionable  ✗ Y invalid

Changes: [staged and committed | NOT staged — manual review required]

Next steps (interactive):
1. git diff — review changes
2. git add -p — stage selectively
3. git commit -s -S — commit
4. Reply to invalid comments on GitHub

Rules

• Search codebase for patterns before applying any fix (Grep)
• Follow linter rules from ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md — fix root cause, never use skip/disable directives
• Never auto-commit in interactive mode
• Never mark review threads as resolved
• Never assume on ambiguous comments — ask (interactive) or skip (auto)

Input: /fix-review https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/42 Behavior: EnterPlanMode → fetch threads → categorize (read examples.md) → present findings → ExitPlanMode → ask about questionable → apply valid fixes with Edit → run tests → print summary (no auto-commit) Input: /fix-review https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/42 --auto Behavior: fetch threads → categorize → apply valid fixes immediately → skip questionable → git commit -s -S → print summary (no user interaction) Input: PR comment "Add type hints" on def handle_request(req: Request) -> Response: Phase 1 output: ✗ [N/A] api.py:89 — INVALID, type hints already present Phase 4: no Edit applied; reply drafted for reviewer