/resolve-pr-comments

name: resolve-pr-comments
description: "Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using reasoning recalled from past Claude Code transcripts). Use when the user asks to \"resolve PR comments\", \"fix review comments\", \"address PR feedback\", \"handle review comments\", \"address review feedback\", \"respond to PR comments\", \"answer review questions\", or \"address code review\"."

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 already-addressed feedback 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", "body" },
  "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 Already-Addressed Feedback

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 for an observation.

When an observation asserts a requirement or an intended behavior, compare that assertion against `meta.body`. The PR description is the author's own current statement of intent, so a description stating the opposite leaves a premise for Step 5 to settle. Record the contradiction against the observation and carry it forward, so Step 5 settles that premise once instead of re-deriving it for every finding the premise produced.

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, any recorded contradiction with the PR description, 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.

Triage inline threads on their replies. Look for a later reply that claims the concern is fixed and names the commit that fixed it. Verify two things about that commit. First, it is on the branch: it appears in `commits`, or `git branch --contains <sha>` reports the head branch. Second, it changed or deleted the thread's path. When both hold, classify the thread **Addressed** with that SHA and skip Steps 3 through 8 for it. Classify the rest **Unaddressed** and carry them into Step 3.

Step 3: Run `/interpret-feedback` Skill

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

• Unaddressed inline threads from Step 2
• 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** — t