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

dot

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:

bash

# 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<br>Then `--id <ID>` for each comment to analyze<br>Exit if no unresolved comments
Per Comment	Show: file:line, author, comment, ±10 lines context<br>Analyze: Valid/Nitpick/Disagree/Question<br>Recommend: Fix/Reply/Skip with reasoning
Fix	Minimal changes per llm/rules-*.md<br>Offer reply draft: `Fixed: [what]. [why]`<br>Show: `gh api --method POST repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/comments/$ID/replies -f body="..."`
Reply	Draft based on type: Question/Suggestion/Disagreement<br>Let user edit<br>Show gh command (never auto-post)
Summary	Processed X/N: Fixed Y, Replied Z, Skipped W<br>List: files modified, reply drafts, next steps

Critical Principles

Principle	Violation Pattern
Analyze first	Accepting all feedback as valid without critical analysis
Never auto-post	Posting replies automatically instead of showing gh command
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

bash

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

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