Reviews

<!-- ABOUTME: Review comment handling sub-skill for prbuddy --> <!-- ABOUTME: Triages comments, fixes critical, creates issues for nitpicks -->

prbuddy:reviews

Overview

Discovers and triages PR review comments. Fixes critical issues (aligned with PR goals) and creates GitHub issues for nitpicks (valid but out of scope).

Requires: gh-pr-review extension

gh extension install agynio/gh-pr-review

Workflow

Step 1: Get PR Context and Repo Info

# Get repo slug for -R flag
REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner)

# Get PR number
PR_NUM=$(gh pr view --json number -q .number)

# Get PR details
gh pr view --json number,title,body,closingIssuesReferences

Extract:

• Repo slug ($REPO) for commands requiring -R
• PR number ($PR_NUM) for thread operations
• PR goals from title and body
• Linked issues from closingIssuesReferences

These define what's "critical" vs "nitpick".

Step 2: Fetch Review Threads

gh pr-review threads list --unresolved --not_outdated -R $REPO $PR_NUM

This returns unresolved, non-outdated review threads.

Step 3: Triage Each Comment

For each thread, classify:

CRITICAL if comment relates to:

• Linked issues (closingIssuesReferences)
• Goals stated in PR title/body
• Security vulnerabilities (always critical)
• Breaking changes to public API

NITPICK if comment:

• Suggests improvements unrelated to PR goals
• Points out style issues not enforced by linters
• Proposes refactoring beyond PR scope
• Asks questions not requiring code changes

Step 4: Handle Critical Comments

For each critical comment:

4a: Analyze the Feedback

Read the comment carefully. Understand what the reviewer wants.

4b: Consult PAL

mcp__pal__chat: "Review comment analysis:

Reviewer said: [comment text]
PR goal: [from PR body/linked issues]
Code context: [relevant file/function]

What's the best fix approach considering the reviewer's expertise?"

4c: Implement Fix

Make the code changes.

4d: Identify Prevention

What systematic change would prevent this class of issue?

1. Linter rule - Add ESLint/Prettier/etc. rule (strongest)
2. Pre-commit hook - Add check to .pre-commit-config.yaml
3. CI check - Add earlier/faster check
4. Type system - Stricter TypeScript config
5. Test - Add test for this case
6. Documentation - Update CLAUDE.md if agent guidance (weakest)

4e: Commit

git add [files]
git commit -m "fix: [description] (addresses review)

- Fixed: [what was fixed]
- Prevention: [systematic change]"

4f: Reply to Thread

gh pr-review comments reply \
  --thread-id <thread-id> \
  --body "Fixed in [commit].

Changes:
- [what was changed]

Prevention added:
- [systematic change]" \
  -R $REPO $PR_NUM

4g: Resolve Thread (Optional)

Note: Some teams prefer only reviewers resolve their own threads. Ask the user before resolving, or skip this step if team norms require reviewer resolution.

gh pr-review threads resolve --thread-id <thread-id> -R $REPO $PR_NUM

Step 5: Handle Nitpick Comments

For each nitpick comment:

5a: Search for Duplicates

gh search issues --repo $REPO "<search terms from comment>"

Check if similar issue already exists.

5b: Create Issue (if no duplicate)

Determine appropriate labels:

gh label list -R $REPO --json name,description

If needed label doesn't exist:

gh label create "from-review" --color "c5def5" --description "Created from PR review comment" -R $REPO

Create the issue:

gh issue create -R $REPO \
  --title "<concise title>" \
  --body "## Context

From PR #$PR_NUM review by @<reviewer>.

## Original Comment

> <quoted comment>

## Suggested Action

<what should be done>

## Related

- PR: #$PR_NUM
- File: <path>
- Line: <line number>" \
  --label "from-review,<type-label>"

Type labels:

• tech-debt - Refactoring suggestions
• documentation - Doc improvements
• enhancement - Feature suggestions
• good-first-issue - Simple fixes

5c: Reply to Thread

gh pr-review comments reply \
  --thread-id <thread-id> \
  --body "Good catch! This is outside the scope of this PR (focused on [PR goal]).

Created issue #<number> to track this." \
  -R $REPO $PR_NUM

5d: Resolve Thread (Optional)

Note: Some teams prefer only reviewers resolve their own threads. Ask the user before resolving, or skip this step if team norms require reviewer resolution.

gh pr-review threads resolve --thread-id <thread-id> -R $REPO $PR_NUM

Step 6: Push Changes

git push

Step 7: Report Summary

Review Comments Handled

Critical (fixed):
- @reviewer1 on src/api.ts:23 - Added input validation [commit abc123]
  Prevention: Added eslint-plugin-security rule

Nitpicks (issues created):
- @reviewer1 on src/utils.ts:15 - Issue #52 (refactor helper)
- @reviewer2 on README.md:45 - Issue #53 (fix typo)

All threads resolved. Changes pushed.

Commands Reference

Task	Command
List threads	gh pr-review threads list --unresolved --not_outdated -R $REPO $PR_NUM
Reply	gh pr-review comments reply --thread-id <id> --body <msg> -R $REPO $PR_NUM
Resolve	gh pr-review threads resolve --thread-id <id> -R $REPO $PR_NUM
Search issues	gh search issues --repo $REPO "<terms>"
Create issue	gh issue create -R $REPO --title --body --label
List labels	gh label list -R $REPO --json name
Create label	gh label create <name> --color <hex> --description <desc> -R $REPO

Triage Decision Tree

Is this comment about...

├── Security vulnerability?
│   └── CRITICAL (always)
│
├── Something in closingIssuesReferences?
│   └── CRITICAL
│
├── A goal stated in PR title/body?
│   └── CRITICAL
│
├── Breaking change to public API?
│   └── CRITICAL
│
└── Something else?
    └── NITPICK → Create issue