Respond To Pr

Respond to PR

!accelerator config context --skill respond-to-pr --fail-safe

PR reviews directory: !accelerator config path review_prs --fail-safe

You are tasked with working through outstanding pull request review feedback in a systematic, interactive fashion. For each piece of feedback, you verify it against the codebase, confirm the approach with the user, make changes, and respond on GitHub.

Initial Response

When this command is invoked:

1. Check if a PR number or URL was provided:

• If a PR number or URL was provided as an argument, identify the PR immediately
• Begin the process

2. If no argument provided, respond with:

I'll help you respond to pull request review feedback. Please provide:
1. The PR number or URL (or I'll check the current branch)

Tip: You can invoke this command with an argument:
  `/respond-to-pr 123`

Then check if the current branch has a PR: gh pr view --json number,url,title,state 2>/dev/null

If a PR is found on the current branch, offer to use it. If not, wait for the user's input.

Process Steps

Step 1: Fetch PR Context and Outstanding Feedback

1. Get PR metadata:

   gh pr view {number} --json number,url,title,state,baseRefName,headRefName
   

2. Validate PR state: Check that state is OPEN. If the PR is closed or merged, inform the user and use the AskUserQuestion tool with two options:

   1. Yes, proceed anyway — continue responding to a closed/merged PR
   2. No, abort — exit the workflow If the user chooses No, exit the workflow.

3. Get repo info and current user:

   accelerator collaboration pr base-repo {number}
   gh api user --jq '.login'
   

4. Ensure on the correct branch: Check the current branch or bookmark using the appropriate VCS command for this repository (refer to the session's VCS context). Compare with the PR's headRefName. If different, inform the user and use the AskUserQuestion tool with two options:

   1. Yes, switch to PR branch — check out [headRefName] before continuing
   2. No, stay on current branch — continue without switching

5. Check for a structured review artifact:

   Look for {pr reviews directory}/{number}-review-*.md (e.g., 123-review-1.md, 123-review-2.md). If one or more files match:

• Load the highest-numbered file (the most recent review cycle)
• Read the review document
• Extract the verdict, lenses used, and per-lens findings
• Note the severity and confidence of each finding
• This will inform the triage in Step 2

If no matching files are found, proceed without review context — the skill works the same as before, just without the additional context.

6. Fetch review threads via GraphQL (primary source for inline feedback):

   Use the GraphQL API as the single source of truth for review thread data. This avoids the need to correlate REST and GraphQL IDs — each thread node includes the thread ID (for resolution), resolution status, and all comment data in one query.

   gh api graphql -f query='
     query($owner: String!, $repo: String!, $number: Int!, $cursor: String) {
       repository(owner: $owner, name: $repo) {
         pullRequest(number: $number) {
           reviewThreads(first: 100, after: $cursor) {
             pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor }
             nodes {
               id
               isResolved
               isOutdated
               path
               line
               comments(first: 100) {
                 nodes {
                   id
                   databaseId
                   body
                   author { login }
                   createdAt
                 }
               }
             }
           }
         }
       }
     }
   ' -f owner="{owner}" -f repo="{repo}" -F number={number}
   

   Pagination: Check pageInfo.hasNextPage. If true, re-run the query with -f cursor="{endCursor}" to fetch the next page. Repeat until all threads are fetched. If the total exceeds 100 threads, inform the user of the count so they know the full scope.

7. Fetch top-level reviews and issue comments via REST:

   These are not part of the review thread model and require REST:

   # Reviews (top-level review bodies and verdicts)
   gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/reviews --paginate
   
   # Issue comments (conversation-level discussion)
   gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{number}/comments --paginate
   

   Note: Issue comments and top-level review bodies cannot be "resolved" via the resolveReviewThread mutation — they are not part of the review thread model. These items follow a "respond only" path in Step 4 (skip the resolve step).

8. Error handling (standard pattern):

   • gh not installed or not authenticated: suggest gh auth login
   • No default remote: suggest gh repo set-default
   • PR not found: inform user, list open PRs with gh pr list --limit 10
   • Rate limiting (HTTP 403 with rate limit headers): inform the user, suggest waiting and retrying
   • GraphQL errors: check for an errors key in the response before processing data; report specific error messages to the user
   • Network/connectivity failures: suggest checking gh auth status

   Mid-workflow error recovery (for Steps 4e and 4f):

   • Thread reply fails (404 — thread deleted or outdated after force-push): offer to post as a top-level PR comment instead
   • Thread resolution fails (permission or stale thread ID): inform user the thread was not resolved; suggest resolving manually on GitHub
   • Partial failure (code changed but response not posted): clearly state what succeeded and what failed so the user knows the current state

Step 2: Filter and Triage Feedback

1. Filter out noise:

   • Exclude resolved review threads (using GraphQL isResolved data)
   • Exclude reviews with verdict APPROVED that have no body text
   • Exclude bot comments (e.g., CI bots) unless they contain actionable feedback

2. Categorise each piece of feedback:

   Category	Description	Examples
   Blocking	Must fix before merge	Changes requested, security issues, bugs
   Simple	Quick fixes, low risk	Typos, naming, import ordering, small refactors
   Complex	Requires thought/discussion	Architecture changes, design decisions, large refactors
   Question	Needs a response, not code changes	Clarification requests, "why did you..."
   Disagreement	Feedback appears incorrect or inappropriate	Suggestions that would break things, misunderstandings

   If a structured review artifact was loaded in Step 1, cross-reference GitHub review comments against the review's findings. For each comment that matches a finding from the review:

   • Use the finding's severity to inform the category (critical severity → Blocking; major affecting multiple files or requiring design decisions → Complex; major affecting a single file with a clear fix → Simple)
   • Note the confidence level — low-confidence findings may warrant more careful verification in Step 4a
   • Note the lens — this provides context about what quality dimension the finding addresses
   • If the review's cross-cutting themes are relevant, mention them when presenting the item to the user in Step 3

3. Group by review thread: Keep inline comments that belong to the same review thread together — they share context and should be addressed as a unit.

4. Order by priority: Blocking > Simple > Complex > Question > Disagreement. Within the same category, order by reviewer (address one reviewer's feedback before moving to the next for coherence).

5. Handle empty result: If no outstanding feedback remains after filtering (all threads resolved, no actionable comments), inform the user:

   No outstanding feedback on PR #{number}. All review threads are resolved.
   

   If there are reviewers who previously requested changes, offer to re-request review from them. Then exit the workflow.

Step 3: Present Feedback Summary and Gather Preferences

If a review artifact was loaded, add a note after the header:

> Review context loaded from `{pr reviews directory}/{number}-review-{N}.md`
> (verdict: {verdict}, {N} lenses, {date})

Present the triaged feedback to the user with a total count upfront:

## Outstanding Feedback for PR #{number}: {title}

Found **{total} items** of outstanding feedback ({blocking_count} blocking,
{simple_count} simple, {complex_count} complex, {question_count} questions,
{disagreement_count} potential disagreements).

### Blocking ({count})
1. **{reviewer}** on `{file}:{line}` — {summary of comment}
2. ...

### Simple Fixes ({count})
3. **{reviewer}** on `{file}:{line}` — {summary of comment}
4. ...

### Complex Changes ({count})
5. **{reviewer}** — {summary of review body or comment}
6. ...

### Questions to Answer ({count})
7. **{reviewer}** on `{file}:{line}` — {summary of question}
8. ...

### Potential Disagreements ({count})
9. **{reviewer}** on `{file}:{line}` — {summary + why it may be wrong}
10. ...

After the summary, gather workflow preferences:

Before we start, a few preferences:

1. **Working mode**:
   a. **Guided** — confirm each item individually (recommended for complex/
      disagreement items)
   b. **Express** — for Simple items, present change + response together and
      apply without per-step confirmation; Guided for all other categories

2. **Commit strategy**:
   a. Commit after each item
   b. Commit after each category
   c. Commit at the end (or when you say so)

3. **Thread resolution**:
   a. Resolve threads after responding (default)
   b. Leave threads for reviewers to resolve

4. **Order**: Proceed in the order above, or re-prioritise / skip items?

Wait for user confirmation and preferences before proceeding.

Step 4: Work Through Each Item

At any point during this step, the user can:

• Skip: "Skip this item" — mark as deferred, move to the next item
• Stop: "Stop here" — present a progress summary of what was addressed vs. remaining, and exit the workflow

For each feedback item, follow this cycle (adapting to guided vs express mode as selected in Step 3):

4a. Verify the feedback:

• Read the relevant code in the codebase (not just the diff)
• Understand the reviewer's concern in full context
• Check if the feedback is technically correct
• Check if the suggested change would break anything

4b. Present analysis to the user:

For items where the feedback is correct:

### Item {N}: {summary}
**Reviewer**: {name} on `{file}:{line}`
**Feedback**: {quote or summary}

**Analysis**: {explanation of the issue and what the reviewer is asking for}

**Proposed change**: {description of what you'll do}
**Draft response**: "Fixed. {concise description of what will be changed}"

Use the AskUserQuestion tool with two options:

1. Yes, apply this change — make the edit now
2. No, skip this item — leave it unaddressed and move on

For items where the feedback seems incorrect (Disagreement category):

### Item {N}: {summary}
**Reviewer**: {name} on `{file}:{line}`
**Feedback**: {quote or summary}

**Analysis**: I've verified this against the codebase and believe the current
implementation is correct because:
- {reason 1}
- {reason 2}

**Draft response** (if pushing back): "{technical reasoning}"

Use the `AskUserQuestion` tool with three options:

1. **Push back** — post the draft reasoning as a response
2. **Implement anyway** — make the suggested change
3. **Propose alternative** — draft an alternative approach

For questions (no code changes needed):

### Item {N}: {summary}
**Reviewer**: {name} on `{file}:{line}`
**Question**: {quote}

**Draft response**: {response explaining the reasoning}

Use the AskUserQuestion tool with two options:

1. Post as-is — submit the draft response to GitHub
2. Adjust first — revise the response before posting

In all cases, show the user the exact text that will be posted to GitHub before posting it. The user can edit the draft response before it is sent.

4c. Implement the change (upon user confirmation):

• Make the code changes using Edit/Write tools
• Read surrounding code for context before editing
• Keep changes focused on what the feedback asked for

4d. Commit (according to the user's preference from Step 3):

• Per-item: Offer to commit after this item. Show files modified and a suggested commit message.
• Per-category: Track changes. When the current category is complete, offer to commit all changes in that category.
• At-end: Track changes but don't offer to commit until Step 5.

When committing, follow the commit skill pattern using the appropriate VCS commands for this repository (refer to the session's VCS context). Keep commits focused and atomic.

4e. Respond on GitHub:

Reply in the specific comment thread (not as a top-level comment):

# For inline review comments — reply in the thread
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments/{comment_id}/replies \
  --method POST -f body="Fixed. {concise description of what was changed}"

For questions or disagreements:

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments/{comment_id}/replies \
  --method POST -f body="{response text}"

For top-level review body comments:

gh pr comment {number} --body "{response text}"

Response style:

• Factual and concise: "Fixed. Renamed the variable to match the convention."
• No performative agreement: NOT "Great point! You're absolutely right!"
• For pushback: Technical reasoning, not defensiveness
• For questions: Clear explanation of the reasoning

4f. Resolve the review thread (review thread items only):

For items that belong to a review thread (inline code comments from the GraphQL query), resolve the thread via GraphQL if the user chose to auto-resolve in their preferences:

gh api graphql -f query='
  mutation($threadId: ID!) {
    resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: $threadId}) {
      thread { isResolved }
    }
  }
' -f threadId="{thread_node_id}"

The threadId is the GraphQL node id from the review threads query in Step 1.

For issue comments and top-level review body comments: Skip this step. These are not part of the review thread model and cannot be resolved via the GitHub API. Note this in the item's completion message.

4g. Move to next item:

Item {N} addressed and thread resolved. Moving to item {N+1}...

Repeat the cycle for each remaining item.

Step 5: Wrap Up

After all items have been addressed (or the user says "stop here"):

1. Present summary:

   ## Summary
   
   {addressed_count} of {total_count} feedback items addressed:
   - {change_count} changes implemented
   - {question_count} questions answered
   - {pushback_count} items pushed back on
   - {skip_count} items skipped/deferred
   - {commit_count} commits created
   
   Changes are on branch `{branch_name}`.
   

   If items were skipped or deferred, note:

   {skip_count} items were skipped. You can re-run `/respond-to-pr {number}`
   to pick up remaining unresolved items.
   

2. Offer to push (if there are unpushed commits): use the AskUserQuestion tool with two options:

   1. Yes, push now — push committed changes to the remote
   2. No, skip — leave changes unpushed

3. Offer to re-request review: present the list of reviewers who left feedback, then use the AskUserQuestion tool with two options:

   1. Yes, re-request — re-request review from the listed reviewers
   2. No, skip — leave review requests as-is

   If yes:

   echo '{"reviewers":["reviewer1","reviewer2"]}' | \
     gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/requested_reviewers \
       --method POST --input -
   

Important Guidelines

1. Verify before implementing — Always check the reviewer's suggestion against the actual codebase before making changes. The reviewer may not have full context.

2. One item at a time — Work through feedback sequentially. In guided mode, each item gets its own verify-implement-respond cycle. In express mode, simple items can be presented and applied more efficiently.

3. Confirm before acting — In guided mode, always present your analysis and proposed approach before making code changes or posting GitHub responses. In express mode, present the change and response together but still show what will be done before doing it.

4. Factual responses only — Reply with what was done ("Fixed. Extracted the helper into a shared utility."), not with performative agreement ("Great catch! You're absolutely right!").

5. Technical pushback when warranted — If feedback is incorrect, present the technical reasoning to the user. Don't implement changes you believe are wrong without flagging them.

6. Respect commit preference — Follow the user's chosen commit strategy (per-item, per-category, or at-end). Keep commits atomic and focused. Follow the commit skill pattern for this repository's VCS (refer to session VCS context). Keep commits focused and atomic.

7. Reply in threads — Always reply in the specific comment thread, not as a new top-level comment. This keeps the conversation organised.

8. Respect the user's judgment — For disagreements, present your analysis but let the user decide. They may have context you don't.

9. Handle errors gracefully — Follow the error recovery guidance in Step 1.7. For mid-workflow failures, clearly state what succeeded and what failed, and offer specific alternatives (e.g., post as top-level comment, resolve manually, retry).

10. Don't over-change — When implementing feedback, change only what was asked for. Don't refactor surrounding code, add comments to unchanged lines, or "improve" things that weren't mentioned.

11. Re-invocation is resumption — If the user stops mid-way and later re-runs /respond-to-pr {number}, the resolved-thread filter in Step 2 naturally excludes already-addressed items. Inform the user: "I see N threads were already resolved, picking up from the remaining M items."

What NOT to Do

• Don't make code changes without user confirmation
• Don't post GitHub responses without showing the user first
• Don't implement all changes at once — work through them one at a time
• Don't skip the verification step — always check the codebase first
• Don't use performative language in GitHub responses
• Don't commit without following the user's chosen commit strategy
• Don't resolve threads without having addressed the feedback
• Don't automatically re-request review — always offer first
• Don't add co-author information or Claude attribution to commits
• When staging files, always add specific files by name — never bulk-add

Relationship to Other Commands

The respond-to-pr skill fills a gap in the development lifecycle:

1. /create-plan — Create the implementation plan
2. /review-plan — Review and iterate the plan quality
3. /implement-plan — Execute the approved plan
4. /validate-plan — Verify implementation matches the plan
5. /describe-pr — Generate PR description
6. /review-pr — Review the PR through quality lenses
7. /respond-to-pr — Address review feedback (this command)
8. /commit — Commit changes (used within this workflow)

!accelerator config instructions respond-to-pr --fail-safe