Resolve PR Review Comments

Fetch unresolved review comments from a GitHub PR (inline threads, review-body observations, and issue-comment observations from the PR conversation), evaluate each one, fix or skip based on confidence, answer reviewer questions using recalled implementation reasoning, and reply. Inline threads are answered with thread replies; issue-comment findings are answered with new PR conversation comments. Review-body findings flow through the same evaluate-and-fix pipeline; their outcomes land in the summary because a review body has no destination to post to.

Task Tracking

At the start, use TaskCreate to create a task for each step:

1. Fetch comments
2. Triage review bodies and issue comments
3. Run /interpret-feedback skill
4. Split questions and change requests
5. Run /evaluate-findings skill
6. Resolve ambiguities
7. Run /resolve-findings skill
8. Verify fixes
9. Run /answer-reviewer-questions skill
10. Run /reply-to-pr-threads skill
11. Run /reply-to-pr-conversation skill
12. Summary

Step 1: Fetch Comments

Auto-detect owner, repo, and PR number from current branch if not provided. Then run scripts/fetch-pr-data.sh, which handles full pagination (reviews, review threads, inner comment pages for long threads, issue comments, commits) and emits a single merged JSON document:

bash <skill-dir>/scripts/fetch-pr-data.sh <owner> <repo> <pr_number>

Output shape:

{
  "meta":          { "title", "url", "headRefName", "baseRefName" },
  "reviewThreads": [ { "id", "isResolved", "isOutdated", "comments": { "nodes": [ { "author", "body", "path", "line", "originalLine", "diffHunk" } ] } } ],
  "reviews":       [ { "author", "body", "state", "submittedAt" } ],
  "issueComments": [ { "author", "body", "createdAt", "url" } ],
  "commits":       [ { "commit": { "oid", "abbreviatedOid", "message", "committedDate" } } ]
}

Filter review threads to unresolved only. Filter reviews to those with a non-empty body, excluding PENDING state (unsubmitted drafts). Filter issue comments to those with a non-empty body.

Step 2: Triage Review Bodies and Issue Comments

Review bodies and PR conversation comments (issue comments) often pack multiple distinct concerns into one comment. Split each non-empty, non-PENDING review body and each non-empty issue comment into atomic observations, one per paragraph or bullet, so each can be evaluated on its own merits.

For every observation, check whether a subsequent commit already addresses it. Compare the source timestamp (submittedAt for review bodies, createdAt for issue comments) against each commit's committedDate; only commits after the source was posted can address it. Start with commit messages; read git show <oid> only when the message is ambiguous. A commit addresses an observation when its changes clearly resolve that specific concern. Touching the same area is not enough.

Classify each observation:

• Addressed: A subsequent commit resolves it. Record the commit SHA for the Step 12 summary.
• Unaddressed: No subsequent commit resolves it. Carry into Step 3, tagged with its source (review-body or issue-comment), the author, the observation text, and (for review bodies) the review state.

Review-body and issue-comment findings have no diffHunk, file path, or line reference. The downstream pipeline handles findings without a code location.

Step 3: Run /interpret-feedback Skill

Run the /interpret-feedback skill on the union of:

• Unresolved inline threads
• Unaddressed review-body findings from Step 2
• Unaddressed issue-comment findings from Step 2

Skip AI-reviewer accounts — match by known login (e.g., coderabbitai, copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot]), not the [bot] suffix alone. Their structured feedback routes directly to /evaluate-findings.

For inline threads, include the diffHunk so the interpreters can see the code the reviewer was looking at. For outdated comments where line is null, use originalLine. For review-body and issue-comment findings, provide the observation text and the PR's changed-file list as context.

Tag each item with its source (inline-thread, review-body, or issue-comment) so later steps can route replies correctly.

Step 4: Split Questions and Change Requests

Classify each interpreted item as either a question or a change request based on the reconciled intent from Step 3.

• Question — the reviewer is asking for an explanation or wondering whether something is intentional. No code change requested. Examples: "Why this approach?", "Is this intentional?", "What is the benefit here?".
• Change request — the reviewer suggests a code change, flags a bug, or proposes an alternative. This includes soft-phrased suggestions ("could we ...", "consider ...") and rhetorical questions that imply a change ("Shouldn't this ...?", "Is there a reason this isn't ...?").

When in doubt, treat the item as a change request. The verdict from /evaluate-findings in Step 5 will catch genuine non-issues.

Produce two lists. Each entry retains the source tag, identifier (thread id for inline threads; a generated id for review-body and issue-comment findings), file path and line (use originalLine when line is null; omit for review-body and issue-comment findings), the reviewer's original text, and the reconciled intent from Step 3. Questions skip Step 5 and feed Step 9. Change requests feed Step 5.

Step 5: Run /evaluate-findings Skill

Run the /evaluate-findings skill on the change requests from Step 4 to triage each one. Questions are not evaluated here.

Review-body and issue-comment findings have no file or line reference. Scope their assessment to the PR's changed files as a whole, and do not treat the absent code location as a "code has diverged" early exit.

Step 6: Resolve Ambiguities

Collect items assigned an Escalate verdict by /evaluate-findings. If there are none, skip to Step 7.

Output all escalated items as a numbered list. For each item, show:

• The reviewer's original comment
• The competing interpretations or the reason for escalation
• The file and line reference, when available

Then use AskUserQuestion to ask how to handle them. Per item, the options are:

• Direct answer: "Do X" — assign an Accept verdict with the user's clarified intent. Step 7 picks it up as an accepted finding.
• Ask the reviewer: "Ask them Y" — queue a clarification question to be drafted in Step 10 (inline threads) or Step 11 (issue comments)
• Skip: Remove from processing

Step 7: Run /resolve-findings Skill

If there are no accepted findings to implement, skip to Step 9.

Run the /resolve-findings skill on the accepted findings from Step 5, including any items reclassified in Step 6. /finalize commits and pushes as part of its normal flow; Steps 10 and 11 replies reference the already-pushed commit SHA.

Step 8: Verify Fixes

For each finding that was fixed in Step 7, verify the fix actually addresses the reviewer's concern:

1. Read the current code. For inline threads, use the thread's file and line. For review-body and issue-comment findings, read the files touched during the fix.
2. Compare against the reviewer's comment (and diffHunk when available).
3. Confirm the specific concern is resolved.

If the fix did not address the concern (wrong location, incomplete change, or the issue is still present), downgrade the item to Skip. Record the reason (the attempted fix did not resolve the reviewer's concern, with a brief explanation of what remains) so Step 10 (for inline threads), Step 11 (for issue-comment findings), and Step 12 (for review-body findings) report it correctly.

Step 9: Run /answer-reviewer-questions Skill

Run the /answer-reviewer-questions skill on question items whose source is inline-thread. It produces raw answer text per thread.

Issue-comment questions are composed during Step 11's assembly and