PR Comments — Triage & Fix

Fetch all unresolved PR review threads, deduplicate across bots, triage by severity, and produce a fix plan for human approval. After sign-off, resolve ignored threads and spawn subagents to fix real issues.

Invocation

/pr-comments — auto-detect PR from current branch
/pr-comments 608 — specific PR number

Phase 1: Fetch Unresolved Threads

1a. Identify the PR

# Auto-detect from current branch, or use the provided PR number
gh pr view --json number,headRepositoryOwner,title,headRefName,baseRefName

1b. Fetch ALL review threads via GraphQL

Use GraphQL to get thread resolution status — this is the only reliable source of truth.

gh api graphql -f query='
{
  repository(owner: "{OWNER}", name: "{REPO_NAME}") {
    pullRequest(number: {PR_NUMBER}) {
      reviewThreads(first: 100) {
        nodes {
          id
          isResolved
          isOutdated
          path
          line
          comments(first: 20) {
            nodes {
              databaseId
              author { login }
              body
              path
              line
              originalLine
              createdAt
              url
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}'

Paginate if hasNextPage is true. Collect every thread.

1c. Filter to unresolved threads only

Keep threads where isResolved == false
Note isOutdated — the diff may have moved; flag these for extra scrutiny

1d. Also fetch issue-level comments (PR conversation tab)

gh api --paginate "repos/{OWNER}/{REPO_NAME}/issues/{PR_NUMBER}/comments?per_page=100"

Filter to comments from human reviewers only (not bots). These are often the most important.

Phase 2: Deduplicate & Classify

Multiple bots often flag the same underlying issue on the same file/line. Group them.

2a. Group by file + line range

Threads targeting the same file within a 5-line range likely address the same issue. Merge them into a single logical issue.

2b. Parse severity from bot comments

Each bot uses different severity markers:

Bot	Format	Example
`coderabbitai[bot]`	Emoji badge in body	`🟠 Major`, `🟡 Minor`, `🔴 Critical`
`gemini-code-assist[bot]`	SVG image alt text	`![medium]`, `![high]`, `![low]`
`chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]`	Shield badge	`P1`, `P2`, `P3`
`devin-ai-integration[bot]`	HTML comment metadata	Parse `devin-review-comment` JSON for severity

Map all to a unified scale: Critical > Major > Medium > Minor > Nitpick

When multiple bots flag the same issue at different severities, take the highest.

2c. Classify each issue

For each deduplicated issue, determine:

Category: security | bug | correctness | performance | accessibility | style | config | docs
Severity: Critical / Major / Medium / Minor / Nitpick
Confidence: How likely is this a real problem vs. a false positive?
- Human reviewer comments → always high confidence
- Multiple bots flagging the same thing → high confidence
- Single bot, no context about codebase patterns → low confidence
- Bot flagging a SKILL.md or config file → usually noise

2d. Identify ignore candidates

Flag as ignore candidate if ANY of these apply:

Bot comment on a non-source file (.md, config, migrations) with no security implications
Style/nitpick-level feedback that contradicts project conventions (check AGENTS.md)
Bot flagging something that was intentionally designed that way (check git blame / PR description)
Outdated thread (isOutdated == true) where the code has already changed
Duplicate of another issue already being addressed
Bot suggesting a pattern that contradicts a loaded skill or AGENTS.md convention

Phase 3: Write the Fix Plan

Write the plan to .claude/scratchpad/pr-{PR_NUMBER}-review-plan.md.

Plan Format

# PR #{PR_NUMBER} Review Plan — "{PR_TITLE}"

**Branch:** {branch_name}
**PR URL:** {pr_url}
**Threads fetched:** {total} total, {unresolved} unresolved, {outdated} outdated
**Bot breakdown:** {count per bot}

---

## Issues to Fix (ordered by severity)

Only include issues that will actually be fixed. Items classified as ignored in Phase 2 go EXCLUSIVELY in the Ignored section below — never list them here.

### 1. [{SEVERITY}] {Short description of the issue}

- **File:** `path/to/file.ts#L{line}`
- **Category:** {category}
- **Flagged by:** @bot1, @bot2
- **Comment URL:** {url to first comment}
- **What's wrong:** {1-2 sentence explanation in plain english}
- **Suggested fix:** {concrete description of what to change}

> Original comment (from @bot1):
> {relevant excerpt — strip boilerplate/badges}

---

### 2. [{SEVERITY}] ...

---

## Ignored (with reasoning)

Each ignored item appears ONLY here — not duplicated in the Issues to Fix section above.

### I1. @{bot} on `path/to/file.ts#L{line}`

- **Why ignored:** {specific reason — e.g., "contradicts project convention in AGENTS.md to not use explicit return types", "outdated thread, code already changed", "style nitpick on a config file"}
- **Original comment:** {link to comment}

### I2. ...

---

## Summary

- **{N} issues to fix** across {M} files
- **{K} comments ignored** ({reasons breakdown})
- Estimated complexity: {low/medium/high}

Present to user

After writing the plan, tell the user:

Review plan written to .claude/scratchpad/pr-{PR_NUMBER}-review-plan.md. {N} issues to fix, {K} ignored. Please review and confirm to proceed.

STOP HERE. Wait for the user to review and approve. Do not proceed until they confirm.

Phase 4: Execute (after human approval)

Once the user approves (they may edit the plan first — re-read it before executing):

4a. Resolve ignored threads

For each ignored issue, resolve the GitHub thread with a brief comment explaining why:

# Post a reply comment on the thread
gh api -X POST "repos/{OWNER}/{REPO_NAME}/pulls/{PR_NUMBER}/comments" \
  -f body="Acknowledged — {reason}. Resolving." \
  -F in_reply_to={COMMENT_DATABASE_ID}

# Resolve the thread via GraphQL
gh api graphql -f query='
mutation {
  resolveReviewThread(input: { threadId: "{THREAD_NODE_ID}" }) {
    thread { isResolved }
  }
}'

Use concise, specific dismiss reasons. Examples:

"Acknowledged — project convention is to omit explicit return types (see AGENTS.md). Resolving."
"Acknowledged — outdated thread, code has been refactored. Resolving."
"Acknowledged — this is intentional; sessionStorage is only accessed client-side. Resolving."

4b. Fix real issues with subagents

Group related issues that touch the same file or logical unit. Then launch parallel subagents (one per file or logical group) using the Task tool:

Launch a Task subagent (subagent_type: "general-purpose") for each group:

Prompt template:
"Fix the following PR review issue(s) on branch {BRANCH}:

Issue: {description}
File: {path}#{line}
What's wrong: {explanation}
Suggested fix: {fix description}

Read the file, understand the surrounding context, and make the fix.
After fixing, verify the change is correct.
Do NOT touch unrelated code."

Use subagent_type: "general-purpose" for each group
Launch groups in parallel where they touch different files
Sequential if they touch the same file

4c. After all subagents complete

Resolve the fixed threads on GitHub (same GraphQL mutation as 4a, with a comment like "Fixed in latest push.")
Report results to the user

Known Bot Noise Patterns

These are almost always ignorable — but verify before dismissing:

coderabbit on SKILL.md / AGENTS.md files — flags markdown structure, irrelevant
gemini suggesting explicit return types — check project AGENTS.md or lint config before accepting
devin HTML comment metadata — often duplicates what coderabbit already found
codex P3 style suggestions — usually preferences, not bugs
Any bot suggesting as casts or non-null assertions — check project conventions before accepting
vercel[bot] deployment comments — pure noise, never actionable
Bot comments on migration files — almost always false positives (auto-generated code)

pr-comments