pr-review

name: pr-review description: Address review comments and CI failures for the current branch's PR

Constraints

• Key commands: gh pr list --head <BRANCH> · gh pr view <PR> --comments · gh pr checks <PR> · gh run view <RUN_ID> --log-failed
• Workflow fixes cannot be verified locally — the fix is only confirmed once the remote CI re-runs and passes

Resolving Review Threads

After fixing a P1/P2 comment, mark its thread as resolved on GitHub using the GraphQL mutation:

GH_PAGER= gh api graphql -f query='mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: { threadId: "PRRT_xxxx" }) { thread { isResolved } } }'

To get thread IDs with their status and a brief description:

GH_PAGER= gh api graphql -f query='
{
  repository(owner: "OWNER", name: "REPO") {
    pullRequest(number: PR_NUMBER) {
      reviewThreads(first: 50) {
        nodes {
          id
          isResolved
          isOutdated
          path
          line
          comments(first: 1) { nodes { body } }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}' | python3 -c "
import json,sys
data = json.load(sys.stdin)
for t in data['data']['repository']['pullRequest']['reviewThreads']['nodes']:
    body = t['comments']['nodes'][0]['body'][:100].replace('\n',' ') if t['comments']['nodes'] else ''
    print(f\"ID={t['id']}, resolved={t['isResolved']}, outdated={t['isOutdated']}, {t['path']}:{t['line']}\")
    print(f\"  >> {body}\")
"

Resolve threads that are outdated after re-checking whether the concern is already addressed or clearly superseded by the new code. GitHub can mark a thread outdated because the diff moved, not only because the issue was fixed.

Review Restraint Policy

Before acting on any review comment or suggestion, classify it by importance:

Rules:

• For P3, apply this two-question test before touching the code:
  1. Best practice? — Does the change follow language/framework conventions (e.g. prefer imports over FQNs, use existing imports, standard patterns)?
  2. Safe & trivial? — Is the diff mechanical with zero risk of behavioral change and low effort?
  • Both yes → fix it silently, mark thread resolved.
  • Either no → do NOT modify code; record in the summary table and let the user decide.
• Do not add comments to code unless the comment explains non-obvious logic that is truly necessary. Never add comments just to acknowledge a review suggestion was applied.
• When the two-question test is ambiguous, prefer deferring rather than guessing.

Procedure

1. Locate PR — get PR number for current branch
2. Fix CI failures — for each failing check:
   • Fetch logs: gh run view <RUN_ID> --log-failed
   • Workflow issue (wrong config, missing step, bad path):
     1. Fix .github/workflows/ directly
     2. Commit & push the workflow change
     3. Wait for the re-triggered run to complete: poll with GH_PAGER= gh pr checks <PR> (or GH_PAGER= gh run watch <RUN_ID>) until the affected check finishes
     4. If it passes → continue to the next failing check
     5. If it still fails → fetch new logs (gh run view <NEW_RUN_ID> --log-failed) and repeat from step i
   • Code issue, non-breaking: fix source code directly
   • Code issue, breaking change required: stop and report to developer for a decision
3. Address review comments — apply the Review Restraint Policy to each comment:

• P1/P2: implement the fix, then immediately resolve the thread using the GraphQL mutation above
• Outdated threads: re-check whether the concern is already addressed or clearly superseded; only then resolve the thread
• P3: apply the two-question test — fix + resolve if both answers are yes; otherwise record in summary and defer to user
• P4: record rejection reason in summary

4. Commit & push — single commit covering all non-workflow fixes (workflow fixes are pushed incrementally during step 2)
5. Final verification — once all fixes are applied, confirm every check is green: GH_PAGER= gh pr checks <PR>

Output

• Per CI failure: root cause and resolution (or escalation reason)
• After all fixes: summary of check statuses confirming all green
• Review summary table — produced at the end of every review session:

| # | Source (comment / CI) | Issue description | Priority | Action taken | Reason if not fixed |
|---|-----------------------|-------------------|----------|--------------|---------------------|
| 1 | Reviewer @xxx         | use import instead of FQN | P3  | Fixed        | Best practice + trivial mechanical change |
| 2 | Reviewer @xxx         | rename internal var foo→bar | P3 | Not fixed  | Non-standard opinion, no best-practice backing — deferred to user |
| 3 | CI: lint              | null-check missing | P1      | Fixed        | —                   |

All P3/P4 items that were not fixed must appear in this table with a clear reason, so the user can make an informed decision.