PR Resolve — StakTrakr

Review, reply to, and resolve all PR review comments and CI check failures. Handles Copilot review threads, Codacy quality gate findings, and human reviewer comments in a single pass.

Arguments

/pr-resolve accepts:

•<PR number> — resolve comments on a specific PR (e.g., /pr-resolve 136)
•No argument — auto-detect the open PR for the current branch

Phase 1: Discover

Step 1: Identify the PR

If no PR number provided, detect from current branch:

bash

gh pr view --json number,title,url --jq '"\(.number) | \(.title) | \(.url)"'

Step 2: Fetch all unresolved review threads

Use GraphQL to get threads with full context:

bash

gh api graphql -f query='
{
  repository(owner: "lbruton", name: "StakTrakr") {
    pullRequest(number: PR_NUMBER) {
      reviewThreads(first: 50) {
        nodes {
          id
          isResolved
          comments(first: 10) {
            nodes {
              databaseId
              author { login }
              body
              path
              line
              originalLine
              createdAt
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}'

Step 3: Check Codacy status

Fetch PR check status to see if Codacy passed or failed:

bash

gh pr checks PR_NUMBER --json name,state,description --jq '.[] | select(.name | test("codacy|Codacy"; "i"))'

If Codacy failed or reported issues:

•

Check Codacy PR comments — Codacy sometimes leaves inline comments:

bash

gh api repos/lbruton/StakTrakr/pulls/PR_NUMBER/comments --jq '.[] | select(.user.login | test("codacy"; "i")) | "\(.id) | \(.path):\(.line) | \(.body)"'

•

Fetch Codacy PR findings via MCP — use the Codacy MCP tools for detailed analysis:

code

mcp__codacy__codacy_list_pull_request_issues  (provider: "gh", owner: "lbruton", repo: "StakTrakr", pullRequestNumber: PR_NUMBER)

•

Cross-reference with Codacy dashboard — for pattern-level details:

code

mcp__codacy__codacy_get_repository_with_analysis  (provider: "gh", owner: "lbruton", repo: "StakTrakr")

Step 4: Summarize all findings

Present a unified table of issues from all sources:

code

PR #XX — Title
==============

Review Threads (Copilot/Human): N unresolved
 #  | File:Line        | Author  | Summary
 1  | sw.js:163        | copilot | networkFirst resolves undefined
 2  | sw.js:157        | copilot | cacheFirst catch can reject

Codacy Quality Gate: PASS / FAIL
 #  | File:Line        | Category    | Summary
 C1 | events.js:245    | Complexity  | Function exceeds CCN threshold (15 > 10)
 C2 | utils.js:89      | Duplication | 12-line clone of utils.js:340

Proceed to review each? [Yes / Skip specific items]

Wait for user confirmation before proceeding.

Phase 2: Triage

For each unresolved issue (review threads AND Codacy findings), read the relevant code context and classify it:

Classification labels

Label	Meaning	Action
Resolved	Already fixed in a subsequent commit	Reply with commit SHA + explanation, resolve thread
Fix now	Valid concern, will fix immediately	Make the fix, commit, reply with commit SHA, resolve thread
Deferred	Valid but out of scope for this PR	Reply noting deferral + create a Linear issue or TODO, resolve thread
False positive	Not applicable or incorrect suggestion	Reply with rationale explaining why, resolve thread
Acknowledged	Valid observation, addressed at a different level	Reply explaining the alternative approach taken, resolve thread
Won't fix	Disagree with the suggestion	Reply with technical justification, resolve thread
Pre-existing	Codacy flagged code that wasn't changed in this PR	Note in summary, do not fix (avoid scope creep)

Codacy-specific triage rules

•Complexity: If the function was modified in this PR, fix it. If it's pre-existing complexity on untouched code, classify as Pre-existing and optionally note for a future cleanup PR.
•Duplication: If the duplication was introduced in this PR, extract a helper. If pre-existing, classify as Pre-existing.
•Security: Always classify as Fix now regardless of whether the code is new or pre-existing — security issues don't get deferred.
•Code style / patterns: Fix if trivial (< 5 min), defer if substantial.

Present the classification to the user before acting:

code

Thread #1 — sw.js:163 (copilot)
  "networkFirst resolves undefined..."
  Classification: Resolved ✓
  Proposed reply: Fixed in 1b95511 — now terminates with Response.error()

Codacy C1 — events.js:245 (complexity)
  "Function handleSubmit exceeds CCN threshold"
  Classification: Pre-existing (function not modified in this PR)

Approve all? [Go / Adjust #N / Skip #N]

Wait for user confirmation. User may adjust classifications or skip items.

Phase 3: Execute

Step 1: Fix code issues

For each "Fix now" item (both review threads and Codacy findings), in order:

•Read the file and understand the context
•Make the code fix using Edit tool
•Run node -c <file> to syntax-check
•Continue to next item (stage all at the end)

Batch fixes into logical commits. Group related fixes:

•All Copilot review fixes for the same file → one commit
•All Codacy fixes for the same category → one commit
•Don't mix Copilot and Codacy fixes in the same commit (makes the audit trail clearer)

Commit message formats:

bash

# For Copilot/human review fixes
git commit -m "fix: <description> (PR #XX review)"

# For Codacy quality fixes
git commit -m "fix: <description> (Codacy)"

Step 2: Push all fix commits

bash

git push origin <branch>

Step 3: Reply to and resolve review threads

For each Copilot/human review thread, reply with the appropriate format:

Resolved:

code

**Resolved in** `<commit SHA>`

<What was changed and why>

Fixed in this pass:

code

**Fixed in** `<commit SHA>`

<What was changed and why>

Deferred:

code

**Deferred to future patch**

Valid concern. <Brief acknowledgment>. Tracked as [STAK-XX](link) for a future release.

False positive:

code

**False positive — no change needed**

<Technical explanation of why this isn't an issue>

Acknowledged:

code

**Acknowledged — <alternative approach taken>**

<Explanation of the approach and why it addresses the concern>

Won't fix:

code

**Won't fix**

<Technical justification>

Reply using the GitHub API:

bash

gh api repos/lbruton/StakTrakr/pulls/PR_NUMBER/comments/COMMENT_ID/replies \
  -f body="REPLY_TEXT"

Resolve the thread using GraphQL:

bash

gh api graphql -f query='
  mutation {
    resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_NODE_ID"}) {
      thread { isResolved }
    }
  }'

Step 4: Comment on Codacy fixes

If Codacy issues were fixed, leave a single summary comment on the PR (not per-finding):

bash

gh pr comment PR_NUMBER --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Codacy Fixes

- **Complexity**: Extracted `handleFoo` helper to reduce CCN in `events.js:handleSubmit` (`abc1234`)
- **Duplication**: Merged shared logic into `buildFields` helper (`def5678`)

Pre-existing issues (not addressed in this PR):
- `filters.js:120` — CCN 12 (function not modified in this PR)

Codacy will re-scan on next push.
EOF
)"

Phase 4: Verify

After all fixes are pushed, wait for CI to re-run, then verify:

Step 1: Check review threads

bash

gh api graphql -f query='
{
  repository(owner: "lbruton", name: "StakTrakr") {
    pullRequest(number: PR_NUMBER) {
      reviewThreads(first: 50) {
        nodes {
          isResolved
        }
      }
    }
  }
}' --jq '[.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes[] | select(.isResolved == false)] | length'

Step 2: Check Codacy status

bash

gh pr checks PR_NUMBER --json name,state --jq '.[] | select(.name | test("codacy|Codacy"; "i"))'

If Codacy is still pending, note it in the summary. If it failed again, run Phase 1 again for the new findings only.

Step 3: Check for new Copilot threads

Pushing fix commits may trigger a new Copilot review. If new unresolved threads appear, loop back to Phase 1 for the new threads only.

Step 4: Report summary

code

PR #XX — Resolution Summary
=============================

Review Threads
 Total:          N
 Fixed:          X (new commits)
 Resolved:       Y (already addressed)
 False positive:  Z
 Deferred:       W (tracked in Linear)

Codacy Quality Gate
 Status:         PASS ✓ / PENDING ⏳ / FAIL ✗
 Fixed:          X findings
 Pre-existing:   Y (not in scope)

Commits pushed: [list of SHAs]
Unresolved threads: 0

Ready for merge.

Important Notes

•Never resolve without replying. Every thread must have a reply explaining the disposition, even if it's just "Fixed in abc123". This creates an audit trail.
•Batch fixes into logical commits. If multiple threads point to the same file/concern, combine them into a single fix commit rather than one commit per thread.
•Don't force-resolve disagreements. If a human reviewer (not a bot) left a comment and the classification is "Won't fix", flag it for the user rather than auto-resolving. Bots (copilot, codacy) can be auto-resolved after reply.
•Check for new threads after pushing. Pushing fix commits may trigger a new Copilot review. If new threads appear, run Phase 1 again for new threads only.
•Respect review re-requests. If the PR has a "Changes requested" review status, resolving threads alone won't clear it — the reviewer needs to re-approve. Note this in the summary if applicable.
•Codacy re-scans automatically. Unlike Copilot threads which need manual resolution, Codacy re-evaluates on each push. If your fixes are correct, the quality gate will flip to PASS without additional action.
•Don't fix pre-existing Codacy issues in release PRs. Scope creep on a release PR risks introducing regressions. Note pre-existing issues and address them in a dedicated cleanup PR if needed.
•Security findings are never "pre-existing." If Codacy flags a security issue, fix it regardless of whether the code was modified in this PR.