Check Pr Review

PR context

!PR_ARG="$ARGUMENTS"; REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner --jq .nameWithOwner 2>/dev/null); PR=${PR_ARG:-$(gh pr view --json number --jq .number 2>/dev/null)}; gh pr view "$PR" --json number,title,state,headRefName,additions,deletions --jq '"PR #\(.number): \(.title)\nState : \(.state)\nBranch: \(.headRefName)\nDiff : +\(.additions) / -\(.deletions) lines"' 2>/dev/null || echo "ERROR: could not resolve PR — pass a PR number explicitly"

Inline code comments

!PR_ARG="$ARGUMENTS"; REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner --jq .nameWithOwner 2>/dev/null); PR=${PR_ARG:-$(gh pr view --json number --jq .number 2>/dev/null)}; gh api "repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR/comments" --paginate --jq 'sort_by(.path, (.line // .original_line)) | .[] | (if .in_reply_to_id then " ↳ [reply \(.id)] [\(.user.login)]" else "[\(.id)] [\(.user.login)] \(.path):\(.line // .original_line // "?")" end) + "\n" + (if .in_reply_to_id then " " else " " end) + (.body | gsub("\n"; "\n ")) + "\n"' 2>/dev/null || echo "(none)"

Review verdicts

!PR_ARG="$ARGUMENTS"; REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner --jq .nameWithOwner 2>/dev/null); PR=${PR_ARG:-$(gh pr view --json number --jq .number 2>/dev/null)}; gh api "repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR/reviews" --paginate --jq '.[] | "[\(.user.login) — \(.state)]" + (if .body != "" then "\n " + (.body | gsub("\n"; "\n ")) else " (no summary)" end) + "\n"' 2>/dev/null || echo "(none)"

Conversation comments

!PR_ARG="$ARGUMENTS"; REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner --jq .nameWithOwner 2>/dev/null); PR=${PR_ARG:-$(gh pr view --json number --jq .number 2>/dev/null)}; gh api "repos/$REPO/issues/$PR/comments" --paginate --jq 'if length == 0 then "(none)" else (.[] | "[\(.user.login)]\n " + (.body | gsub("\n"; "\n ")) + "\n") end' 2>/dev/null || echo "(none)"

Classification rules

For each top-level inline comment (entries without ↳):

• Stale — the concern no longer applies to the current code (already fixed, file removed, logic changed). Do nothing.
• Valid — a real bug, security issue, or correctness problem not yet addressed. Fix it in the working tree now.
• Deferred — a reasonable suggestion (architecture, refactor, edge case handling) but out of scope for this PR. Create a GitHub issue.
• Skip — factually wrong, opinion-only with no actionable substance, or noise. Dismiss it.

For reply threads (↳): read the full thread for context before classifying the parent comment. A reply that resolves the concern makes the parent stale.

For CHANGES_REQUESTED reviews: treat each distinct concern in the review body as a comment to classify independently.

For APPROVED reviews and plain COMMENTED reviews with no code concerns: classify as Skip (acknowledge, no action).

Steps

1. Read the injected data above
2. For each top-level inline comment: a. Read the referenced file at the referenced line (path:line) to see the current code state b. Read any reply thread beneath it for context c. Classify with a one-line reason
3. For each CHANGES_REQUESTED review body: extract distinct concerns and classify each
4. Fix all valid issues directly in the source files
5. After all fixes: cargo clippy -- -D warnings && cargo test
6. For each deferred issue: gh issue create --title "..." --body "..." — write a clear title and body explaining the concern and why it's worth tracking
7. Report the summary table: