github-pr-review

name	github-pr-review
description	Fetching and addressing GitHub PR review comments from Copilot, Greptile, and human reviewers. Includes provider-calibrated triage, verification, ticket management, and conditional spec updates. Use when in review mode or when PR feedback needs to be addressed.

GitHub PR Review

The Ralph Loop pulls all PR review comments (Copilot, Greptile, and human), triages them with provider-calibrated skepticism, and acts on each according to its classification.

Fetching Reviews

Reviews are fetched automatically by rl loop review, which writes to .rl/pr-reviews.md with comments grouped by source:

• Greptile Summary (issue comment with confidence score and analysis)
• Human Review Comments (highest priority)
• Greptile Review Comments (codebase-aware inline findings)
• Copilot/Bot Review Comments
• Review Summaries (top-level review comments)

Each comment includes: author, file path, line number, comment body, and diff hunk. Issue comments (Greptile summary) use issue_comment_id instead of comment_id.

Triage Categories

Category	Examples	Action
Code fix	Bug, missing null check, style issue, unused import	Fix code directly, note on ticket
Design concern	"This API should be paginated", "Consider using X pattern"	Amend ticket or create new task
Spec gap	"What happens when user has no permissions?", "Edge case not handled"	Update specs (if USE_OPENSPEC=true in .rl/config) or note in LESSONS.md
Invalid	Misread diff, already fixed, doesn't apply	Document why, skip

Provider-Calibrated Verification

Before acting on any comment, calibrate your skepticism by provider:

Provider	Trust level	Guidance
Human	Highest priority	May reflect business context or domain knowledge not visible in code
Greptile	Codebase-aware, generally reliable	Has indexed the full repo — findings tend to be accurate. Still verify.
Copilot	High false-positive rate	Often flags style preferences or suggests breaking changes. Verify thoroughly.

For all providers:

1. Read the actual current code (not just the diff hunk -- hunks can be stale)
2. Check if already fixed by a subsequent commit
3. Verify the claim -- is the reviewer correct about the behavior?
4. Assess impact -- will the suggested change break anything?

Reading Greptile Summaries

When a Greptile summary is present in pr-reviews.md:

• Read the confidence score for analysis certainty
• Read mermaid diagrams if present for change impact visualization
• The summary provides context, but individual inline findings are what need triage

Acting on Comments

Code Fix

# Fix the code, then:
tk add-note <ticket-id> "Fixed per review: <summary>"

Design Concern --> Amend Ticket

# If within scope of existing ticket:
tk add-note <ticket-id> "Design feedback: <summary>"
# Then edit .tickets/<id>.md to update Design section

# If new scope:
tk create "<title>" -t task --parent <epic-id> -p 2 \
  -d "<description>" --acceptance "<done criteria>"

Spec Gap (if USE_OPENSPEC=true in .rl/config)

When USE_OPENSPEC=true is set in .rl/config, spec gaps should be addressed in OpenSpec:

# If active change exists:
# Edit openspec/changes/<change-id>/specs/<domain>/spec.md
# Add missing requirements in ADDED or MODIFIED sections

# If already archived:
# Append to LESSONS.md for next change cycle

When OpenSpec is not enabled, record spec gaps in LESSONS.md for future reference.

Invalid

No code changes. Optionally document reasoning in commit message.

Replying to and Resolving Comments

After fixing code and pushing, reply to each PR comment and resolve its thread.

Comment ID Extraction

The review fetcher (libexec/rl-fetch-reviews) embeds comment IDs and GraphQL node IDs as HTML comments in the markdown output:

Review comments (inline — Copilot, Greptile, human):

<!-- comment_id: 12345678 node_id: PRR_kwDOxxxxxxx -->

Issue comments (timeline — Greptile summary):

<!-- issue_comment_id: 99999999 -->

The repository and PR number are in the header:

# PR Review Comments (PR #42)
Repository: `owner/repo`

Manifest comment_type Field

The review manifest (.rl/review-manifest.json) uses comment_type to route replies:

• "review" — reply via PR comment API + resolve thread
• "issue" — reply via issue comment API (no thread resolution)

Replying via GitHub API

# Get the fix commit SHA
COMMIT_SHA=$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)

# Reply to a specific comment
gh api "repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{comment_id}/replies" \
  -f body="Fixed in ${COMMIT_SHA} — <brief description>"

Resolving Threads via GraphQL

After replying, resolve the thread so it collapses in the PR:

# Get the thread ID from the comment's node_id
THREAD_ID=$(gh api graphql -f query='
  query {
    node(id: "{node_id}") {
      ... on PullRequestReviewComment {
        pullRequestReviewThread { id }
      }
    }
  }' --jq '.data.node.pullRequestReviewThread.id')

# Resolve the thread
gh api graphql -f query="
  mutation {
    resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: \"$THREAD_ID\"}) {
      thread { isResolved }
    }
  }"

Reply Guidelines

Category	Reply
Code fix	"Fixed in abc1234 — added null check for empty array case"
Design concern	"Tracked in ticket pro-xxxx for follow-up"
Invalid	"This doesn't apply — the variable is used in the closure on line N"
Spec gap	"Added to LESSONS.md / updated spec"

• Keep replies concise (1-2 sentences)
• Always reference the commit SHA for code fixes
• For review comments (comment_type: "review"), always resolve the thread after replying (issue comments cannot be resolved)

PR Safety

Ralph never merges or closes PRs. The review mode uses the GitHub CLI to:

• Create draft PRs (gh pr create --draft)
• Mark PRs as ready (gh pr ready)
• Edit PR descriptions (gh pr edit)
• Reply to review comments (gh api .../replies)

That's it. A human always performs the final merge.