/resolve-diagnostics

name: resolve-diagnostics
description: >-
  Resolves IDE diagnostics (inspections and analyzer findings) at the `warning` or higher severity
  level for a given set of files, then applies the solution's code style. Use this skill when a
  workflow's refactoring step calls for resolving diagnostics, or when the user asks to fix
  warnings, inspections, or static analysis findings in specific files.
  Typically invoked as `/resolve-diagnostics <PATH>`.
argument-hint: "[file paths]"
license: Unlicense
metadata:
  author: Koji Hasegawa

Resolves IDE diagnostics at the `warning` or higher severity level for the given files, reformats them to the solution's code style, then runs the tests.

Input

One or more file path arguments. Resolve them to a concrete set of files, then:

• Keep only `.cs` files that belong to the current Unity solution — they are the only ones that

carry IDE diagnostics, and `reformat_file` requires solution membership.

• Drop everything else (docs, `.meta`, `.asmdef`, assets, files outside the solution).
• Normalize the remaining paths to project/solution-root-relative form, once, up front —

`lint_files`, `get_file_problems`, and `reformat_file` all expect that form.

If no path argument is given, use `AskUserQuestion` to ask the user for the targets. Do not derive targets from `git status` — that would silently widen the scope beyond what was requested.

If no files remain after filtering, stop and report that — there is nothing to resolve.

Workflow

Step 1: Load the Coding Guide

1. Load the `code-writing-guide` skill — do not rely on automatic skill triggering. Every fix applied in Step 2 must follow it. 2. Read its `resources/diagnostics-review-feedback.md` now, **before collecting any diagnostics** in Step 2 — do not wait for its `## Resources` bullet to be reached incidentally; a diagnostic fix decision must never be made before this file has been read in this run.

Never leave a `warning`-or-higher diagnostic unaddressed — each one is either fixed or explicitly suppressed per the criteria just read.

Step 2: Resolve Diagnostics

Resolve diagnostics at the `warning` or higher severity level, collecting them for all resolved files via `lint_files` rather than one file at a time. By default the tools also return `suggestion`- and `hint`-level results — those are out of scope, with one exception: a `suggestion`-level diagnostic related to performance (execution speed, memory allocation, boxing, etc.) should be considered for fixing too, though it never requires suppression when declined. Both `lint_files` and its fallback `get_file_problems` require Rider 2026.2 or later.

1. `lint_files` — pass every resolved file in one call

• If the call errors, fall back to `get_file_problems`, called once per file
• On a `timedOut` or `more` result, retry the outstanding file(s) with `get_file_problems`
• If a timeout persists, use `AskUserQuestion` to confirm the user is running Rider 2026.2 or

later before retrying further

• Files reported as not analyzed carry into Step 5 as skipped

2. Decide each diagnostic per the criteria read in Step 1, and apply all resulting changes as a single set per file

• When a fix is a rename (naming-convention inspections) or a symbol removal (unused-member

findings), apply it via `rename_refactoring` / `safe_delete` so references are updated across the solution

Do not use `mcp__ide__getDiagnostics` (limited to files open in editor tabs) or the Unity compiler output (does not reflect `.editorconfig` severity settings).

Step 3: Reformat

Call `reformat_file` once with the full list of files resolved in Input (not one call per file), passing `rootFolder` as the project/solution root.

Step 4: Run Tests

If any file was modified in Step 2 — a fix or a suppression — load the `run-tests` skill (do not rely on automatic skill triggering) and run the tests for the affected assemblies, then confirm they still pass. Step 3's reformatting alone does not change behavior, so skip this step when Step 2 applied no changes.

Step 5: Report Suppressions and Known-Issue Items

If any diagnostic was suppressed rather than fixed, list each one for the user together with its reason. The suppression site itself already carries a "why not" comment per the Step 1 criteria.

Also list any files skipped in Step 2 as not analyzed, together with the reason given.

Also list any diagnostics handled under the Gotchas below, each with the user-verification request described there.

Gotchas

Suppression comment format:

• The `// ReSharper disable once <InspectionName>` form works only for ReSharper's built-in

inspections (e.g., `RedundantEmptySwitchSection`) — it has no effect on Roslyn analyzer diagnostics. To suppress an analyzer diagnostic, wrap the code in `#pragma warning disable <ID>` / `#pragma warning restore <ID>` using the analyzer's diagnostic ID (e.g., `NUnit2007`).

Known issues in `lint_files` / `get_file_problems` as of Rider 2026.2.1:

• [RIDER-142275](https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/RIDER-142275): inspections from ReSharper

plugins are returned with an empty description. Do not guess what such a diagnostic means or attempt a fix — leave it as is, and in Step 5 ask the user to open the file in the editor and check what the inspection actually reports (e.g., whether it is a complexity finding).

• [RIDER-142276](https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/RIDER-142276): Roslyn analyzer diagnostics

that are already suppressed in source are still reported. Once a `#pragma warning disable` for the diagnostic is in place, treat it as resolved and move on even if the tools keep reporting it — do not re-fix or re-suppress. In Step 5, ask the user to confirm the suppression is effective in the editor.