address-pr-review

name	address-pr-review
description	Use when you have PR review comments to address and want to evaluate each comment's validity before deciding to fix, reply, or skip

Address PR Review Comments

Overview

Interactive workflow: analyze PR review comment validity, recommend action, let user decide (fix/reply/skip).

When to Use

• PR has review comments needing evaluation before action
• Reviewer feedback might be incorrect or needs discussion
• Comments require varied responses (fix/reply/skip)
• Need to balance code quality with respectful reviewer engagement

When NOT to Use

• All comments are clearly valid and straightforward to fix
• No comments yet or doing pre-review self-review
• Comments only on non-code files without technical analysis needed

Workflow Overview

digraph pr_review_flow {
    "Fetch PR comments" [shape=box];
    "More comments?" [shape=diamond];
    "Show comment + file context" [shape=box];
    "Analyze validity" [shape=box];
    "Recommend action" [shape=box];
    "Ask user: Fix/Reply/Skip/Quit?" [shape=diamond];
    "Make code changes" [shape=box];
    "Draft reply" [shape=box];
    "Track as skipped" [shape=box];
    "Show summary" [shape=box];

    "Fetch PR comments" -> "More comments?";
    "More comments?" -> "Show comment + file context" [label="yes"];
    "More comments?" -> "Show summary" [label="no"];
    "Show comment + file context" -> "Analyze validity";
    "Analyze validity" -> "Recommend action";
    "Recommend action" -> "Ask user: Fix/Reply/Skip/Quit?";
    "Ask user: Fix/Reply/Skip/Quit?" -> "Make code changes" [label="Fix"];
    "Ask user: Fix/Reply/Skip/Quit?" -> "Draft reply" [label="Reply"];
    "Ask user: Fix/Reply/Skip/Quit?" -> "Track as skipped" [label="Skip"];
    "Ask user: Fix/Reply/Skip/Quit?" -> "Show summary" [label="Quit"];
    "Make code changes" -> "More comments?";
    "Draft reply" -> "More comments?";
    "Track as skipped" -> "More comments?";
}

Fetching Comments

CRITICAL: Do NOT use gh api --jq directly - it truncates comment bodies.

Use the included script:

# summary with counts and titles
python .claude/skills/address-pr-review/scripts/fetch_comments.py <PR> --summary

# show unresolved comments (default)
python .claude/skills/address-pr-review/scripts/fetch_comments.py <PR>

# single comment by ID
python .claude/skills/address-pr-review/scripts/fetch_comments.py <PR> --id <ID>

# all comments including resolved
python .claude/skills/address-pr-review/scripts/fetch_comments.py <PR> --all

Quick Reference

Critical principle: Reviewer may be wrong - analyze validity before recommending action.

Phase	Actions
Fetch	Run --summary first to see counts Only process unresolved comments — resolved ones are already closed, skip them Then --id <ID> for each unresolved comment to analyze Exit if no unresolved comments
Per Comment	Show: file:line, author, comment, ±10 lines context Analyze: Valid/Nitpick/Disagree/Question Recommend: Fix/Reply/Skip with reasoning
Fix	Minimal changes per llm/rules-*.md Do NOT reply — just fix the code
Reply	Draft based on type: Question/Suggestion/Disagreement Wait 2 minutes between each reply Post with: gh api --method POST repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{PR}/comments -f body="..." -F in_reply_to=<ID> (never auto-post without user confirmation)
Summary	Processed X/N: Fixed Y, Replied Z, Skipped W List: files modified, reply drafts, next steps

Critical Principles

Principle	Violation Pattern
Unresolved only	Processing already-resolved comments — the script default filters to unresolved; never re-open resolved threads
Analyze first	Accepting all feedback as valid without critical analysis
Never auto-post	Posting replies automatically without user confirmation or skipping 2-minute wait between replies
No reply on fix	Replying to comments that were addressed with a code fix — fixes speak for themselves
One at a time	Batch processing all comments without individual analysis
Show context	Making changes without displaying ±10 lines around code
Minimal changes	Large refactors in response to small comments
Follow standards	Ignoring llm/rules-*.md when fixing
Respectful honesty	Being defensive/dismissive when reviewer is wrong
User control	Posting drafts without letting user edit first

Reply Formats

• Fix: Fixed: [what]. [why]
• Update: Updated: [what]
• Answer: [explanation]
• Acknowledge: Good catch, [action/reason]
• Disagree: [respectful reasoning]

Setup & Usage

Requires: gh CLI authenticated, GitHub remote configured

# Start session
"use address-pr-review for PR <number>"

# Or list PRs first
"use address-pr-review"