Pr comments

PR Comments: turn review feedback into judged, actionable tasks

You are working through the review feedback on a pull request. The failure mode this skill prevents is treating feedback — especially AI-reviewer feedback — as either gospel or noise: each comment gets a grounded verdict — valid and worth acting on, or incorrect and safe to dismiss — backed by evidence from the repo, never by vibes. You triage; you do not fix, and you do not post.

When to use this skill

• "Pull the comments from the PR" / "look at the comments on my PR" / "go through the review feedback"
• After opening a PR, once its reviews (human or automatic AI) have posted

When NOT to use this skill

• No PR exists yet — review the branch locally instead; this skill triages posted feedback.
• The user wants the fixes applied — triage first with this skill; applying accepted items is a follow-up outside it.
• Summarizing a PR's discussion for status purposes — just read it; this skill is for triage.

Steps

1. Resolve the PR. From a given number/URL, or the current branch (gh pr view with no args). If no PR can be resolved, ask and stop until answered.

2. Collect the feedback. Four sources, all of them:

   • Review bodies and states: gh pr view <n> --json reviews
   • Inline review comments: gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<n>/comments — GET only; this skill reads, it never writes (never -X POST/PATCH/DELETE).
   • Conversation comments: gh pr view <n> --json comments
   • Thread resolution (so "skip resolved" is real, not assumed — the REST endpoints above don't expose it): gh api graphql -f query='{repository(owner:"<owner>",name:"<repo>"){pullRequest(number:<n>){reviewThreads(first:100){pageInfo{hasNextPage endCursor} nodes{isResolved comments(first:50){nodes{databaseId path line}}}}}}}' — map every comment's databaseId in each thread to that thread's isResolved (a reply inside a resolved thread must be dropped too — don't stop at the first comment); if pageInfo.hasNextPage (a PR with >100 review threads), re-run the query with after:"<endCursor>" to page through the rest.

   Default scope is all unresolved feedback — human and AI/bot alike; narrow to bot-authored only when the user asks for just the AI review. Drop threads whose isResolved is true (and any already replied to with a decision), using the resolution map above — never guess resolution. If this leaves zero items, distinguish "reviewed, nothing flagged" from "the review hasn't posted yet": when the repo runs an automatic AI review on PR open and no bot review is present in reviews yet, tell the user it likely hasn't posted and to re-run shortly — report a clean/empty triage only when at least one review actually exists.

3. Build the task list. One numbered item per distinct piece of feedback: quote (or tightly paraphrase) the comment, its file/line anchor, and its thread id. Merge duplicates that restate the same point.

4. Judge each item. Check the claim against reality: read the flagged file at the flagged line, grep the repo for the conventions or symbols the comment invokes, and read the surrounding code rather than the hunk alone. When a judgment needs intent context beyond the code — what the change was supposed to do — read the PR description and any linked issue/ticket via gh before verdicting; if intent is still genuinely ambiguous, that item is HUMAN, not a guess. Verdicts:

   • ACT — the comment is right; state what the fix is (don't apply it).
   • DISMISS — the comment is wrong or moot; state the evidence (file:line) that refutes it.
   • HUMAN — judgment call above this skill's pay grade (product intent, team preference); say what the human needs to decide.

5. Present the triage in the output format, then stop. Do not reply to threads, resolve threads, or edit files. If the user wants accepted items applied or dismissals posted as replies, that happens after this skill, at their direction.

Output format

PR #<n> — <title>
Feedback items: <total>   ACT: <n>   DISMISS: <n>   HUMAN: <n>

1. [ACT] <file:line> — "<comment gist>"
   Fix: <what to change, one line>
2. [DISMISS] <file:line> — "<comment gist>"
   Evidence: <file:line / fact that refutes it>
3. [HUMAN] <file:line> — "<comment gist>"
   Decide: <the question for a human>

Suggested order: <ACT items grouped by file, cheapest verification first>

Rules

What to do

• Every verdict carries evidence. ACT names the concrete fix; DISMISS cites the file/fact that refutes the comment; HUMAN states the open question. "Seems right" is not a verdict.
• Be willing to dismiss. Review feedback — AI feedback especially — is advisory; a grounded DISMISS with evidence is as valuable as an ACT.
• Collect from all three comment surfaces — review bodies, inline comments, conversation — inline-only misses half the feedback.

What NOT to do

• Never apply fixes or push commits from this skill — the deliverable is the judged task list.
• Never post to GitHub (no replies, no thread resolution, no reviews) — what goes back to the PR is the user's voice.
• Don't re-litigate resolved threads or items the user already decided — triage only open feedback.

Format discipline

• The triage table exactly as above, verdict tags first on each line, then stop. No per-comment essays — one line of reasoning each.