address-pr-comments

name	address-pr-comments
license	MIT
description	Work through unresolved review comments on your PR as the author: triage every thread, implement fixes where the reviewer is right, push back with rationale where they aren't, answer questions, commit + push, and reply to every thread with what happened. Use when asked to address, respond to, or resolve PR review feedback.
compatibility	Requires the GitHub CLI (`gh`) authenticated with access to the PR's repository
inputs	[{"name":"pr","required":false,"description":"PR number, URL, or branch name (default: the open PR for the current branch)"},{"name":"reply_only","required":false,"description":"Default false. When true, make NO code changes — only triage and post replies (answers, rationale, status)."},{"name":"push","required":false,"description":"Default true: push fix commits and post replies. When false, commit locally and print the planned replies without posting."},{"name":"resolve_threads","required":false,"description":"Default false. When true, also mark threads you fixed as resolved. Leave false unless the repo's convention is author-resolves — many teams reserve resolution for the reviewer."},{"name":"comment_prefix","required":false,"description":"Prefix for every posted reply, e.g. a bot identity like 'ReviewBot: ' (default: none)"}]

Address PR Comments

Take the author's seat on your own PR: every unresolved review thread gets exactly one of five outcomes — a fix, a link to the commit that already fixed it, a reasoned push-back, an answer, or a scoped follow-up. A review comment ends one of two ways: you applied it, or you explained why not. A thread left hanging tells the reviewer their time was wasted.

Two calibration rules frame everything below:

• Reviewer comments are input, not commands. Evaluate each on its merits with the same demonstrability bar you'd apply to your own findings. The failure mode of an agent in this seat is sycophancy — "fixing" things that aren't broken because someone asked. If the reviewer is wrong, a respectful, evidence-based reply is addressing the comment.
• A misunderstanding is information about the code. If a competent reviewer misread something, future readers will too. Prefer clarifying the code (rename, restructure, add a code comment) over explaining in the thread — the thread persuades one person once; the code persuades everyone forever.

---

Phase 0 — Gather the threads

From the PR's branch (check it out if needed), sync first — replies will reference commits, so the local branch must match the remote:

git pull --ff-only

Then run the bundled fetcher from the repo root (read-only):

// turbo

bash scripts/fetch-unresolved-threads.sh <pr>

It writes /tmp/pr-unresolved-threads.json — every unresolved thread (path, line, full comment chain with authors and databaseIds) — plus /tmp/pr-meta.json with the PR metadata, base branch, and your login.

Partition the unresolved threads:

• Awaiting you: last comment is not yours → these are the work queue.
• Awaiting them: last comment is yours → skip (re-running this skill must not double-reply; idempotency comes from this filter).

Include bot/agent threads (e.g. automated reviewers) — they're often the easiest wins and ignoring them leaves visible dangling threads.

Also fetch the commit log for the branch (you'll need it in triage):

git log origin/<base>..HEAD --pretty=format:"COMMIT %H %s" --name-only

Phase 1 — Triage every thread

Read each thread completely, then read the file it anchors to (the current version — the comment may reference code that has since moved), plus the diff for that file. Classify into exactly one:

Class	Test	Outcome
fix	The reviewer is right, or it's a small matter of taste (cost of applying < cost of arguing)	Implement in Phase 2
already-addressed	A commit since the comment demonstrably fixed it — confirm by reading git show <sha> -- <path>, not by commit message	Reply with the commit link
push-back	You can demonstrate the comment is mistaken, or the "improvement" would make the code worse (over-engineering, breaking a repo convention, solving a problem that doesn't exist)	Reply with rationale
answer	A genuine question	Reply with the answer; if the question reveals unclear code, also clarify the code (that part becomes a fix)
out-of-scope	Real, but belongs in a different change (unrelated refactor, pre-existing issue, scope creep)	Reply acknowledging it + file or propose a follow-up issue; never silently ignore

Triage discipline:

• For fix: restate to yourself what the reviewer actually wants before editing — misreading the ask and "fixing" the wrong thing is worse than asking. If a comment is genuinely ambiguous, classify it answer and ask for clarification instead of guessing.
• For push-back: the bar is the same demonstrability bar as reviewing — cite the input/behavior, the repo convention, or the concrete cost that makes your way right. Then invite discussion ("happy to change if you disagree") — the goal is consensus on technical facts, not winning.
• If reply_only is set, fix items become replies stating what you would change and your agreement — no edits.

Phase 2 — Implement the fixes

Skip when reply_only. For the fix queue:

1. Group related comments into logical units — one commit per concern, not one mega-commit. Write meaningful messages describing the change itself (fix: guard null user in session refresh), never "address review comments" — reviewers re-review by reading commits since their last pass.
2. Extend or add tests when the fix changes behavior the tests should have caught — the reviewer finding it means the tests didn't.
3. Never rebase, amend, or force-push mid-review. New commits only. History rewriting orphans every existing comment anchor and destroys the reviewer's ability to see what changed since their review. (Squash at merge time if that's the repo's convention.)
4. Verify before pushing: run the repo's build/test/lint for the changed files, resolved the same way as the self-review skill's Step 1.1 (explicit command → repo entry point → toolchain inference → derivation from repo docs). A "fix" that breaks the build converts a helpful reviewer into a hostile one.

Push when push is true:

git push

Phase 3 — Reply to every thread

For each thread in the work queue, post exactly one reply. Formats by class (apply comment_prefix if set):

• fix → Fixed in <short-sha> (<link>) — <one line: what changed>.
• already-addressed → Addressed in <short-sha> (<link>) — <how>.
• push-back → the rationale, evidence first, ending with openness: ...— happy to change it if you see a case this misses.
• answer → the answer; reference specific code/lines.
• out-of-scope → Agreed this is real; it's out of scope here — filed <issue link / proposed follow-up>.

Commit links: <pr-url>/commits/<full-sha> (short SHA as the link text). Post each reply as a threaded response to the thread's first comment (the REST replies endpoint keys on the root comment's databaseId):

gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<number>/comments/<root-databaseId>/replies -f body="<reply>"

One API call per reply — no batching. When push is false, print the planned replies instead of posting.

If resolve_threads is true, resolve only the fix and already-addressed threads (GraphQL resolveReviewThread mutation with the thread id from the fetcher output). Never resolve push-back, answer, or out-of-scope threads — those await the reviewer's response by definition.

Completion

Report a table: thread (path:line, one-line gist) → class → action (commit sha / reply posted / issue filed). Plus: verification status of the pushed fixes, and any thread deliberately left for human judgment. Clean up temp files.

What this skill does NOT do

• Blindly apply every suggestion — that's sycophancy, not collaboration.
• Rewrite branch history — comment anchors and review continuity outrank a tidy log.
• Resolve the reviewer's threads for them (unless resolve_threads and the repo's convention says authors resolve).
• Argue taste — if it's arguable and cheap, apply it; disagreement is reserved for demonstrable technical points.
• Reply to threads already awaiting the reviewer — one reply per turn; re-runs must be idempotent.