Review Triage

flow:review-triage — Triage and address PR review feedback

The closing-loop skill: take the comments a PR has accumulated, decide which are valid and how urgent, plan the fixes, and (after the user signs off) apply them. It is the counterpart to flow:code-review-brief (which prepares a review). This one processes the feedback that came back.

Recommend-only. No skill auto-invokes this — the user starts it, usually in its own session after reviewers have left feedback. Keeping it independent means the triage sees the full, settled set of comments rather than a half-finished review.

Inputs

1. PR number — auto-detect from the current branch (gh pr view --json number --jq .number); ask if there is none.
2. .flow/config.yaml — read defaults (assignee, etc.) if fixes will lead to a PR update.

Preconditions

• gh authenticated against the PR's repo; confirm the active account.
• PR exists. If applying fixes, you should be on (or able to check out) the PR's head branch — confirm before editing.

Step 1 — Gather ALL feedback (every type)

GitHub scatters PR feedback across several endpoints. Collect all of them; missing one drops real comments.

REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner)   # owner/name
PR=<number>
mkdir -p "$OUT_DIR"

# a) Review summaries + states (APPROVED / CHANGES_REQUESTED / COMMENTED)
gh pr view "$PR" --json reviews > "$OUT_DIR/_reviews.json"

# b) Inline review comments (anchored to a file:line, incl. replies)
gh api --paginate "repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR/comments" > "$OUT_DIR/_review-comments.json"

# c) General PR conversation comments (issue-style, not diff-anchored)
gh api --paginate "repos/$REPO/issues/$PR/comments" > "$OUT_DIR/_issue-comments.json"

# d) Review threads with resolution + outdated status (richest grouping)
gh api graphql -F owner="${REPO%/*}" -F name="${REPO#*/}" -F num="$PR" -f query='
  query($owner:String!,$name:String!,$num:Int!){
    repository(owner:$owner,name:$name){
      pullRequest(number:$num){
        reviewThreads(first:100){ nodes{
          isResolved isOutdated path line
          comments(first:50){ nodes{ author{login} body createdAt } } } } } } }' \
  > "$OUT_DIR/_review-threads.json"

Read these (or hand a large set to a Sonnet subagent for a digest). Skip already-resolved threads unless the user asks to revisit them. Dedupe comments that appear in more than one endpoint (a review thread's comments also show up in pulls/.../comments).

Step 2 — Triage each item

For every distinct piece of feedback, judge two axes — don't take comments at face value, verify against the actual code:

• Validity: valid · partially-valid · invalid (with reason) · needs-user-decision (subjective / conflicts with intent / reviewers disagree).
• Priority: P0 release-blocker (correctness, security, broken behavior) · P1 should-fix (clear quality/robustness) · P2 nice-to-have · P3 skip (nit / out of scope / stylistic preference).

Cross-check each claim: open the cited file:line, confirm the issue is real and the suggested fix is correct. Flag reviewer-hallucinated paths or out-of-date (outdated thread) comments. Note where two comments conflict — that is a needs-user-decision.

Step 3 — Write the triage + fix plan (Korean)

Write artifacts/review-triage.md (Korean — user-facing). Keep it scannable.

# 리뷰 반영 검토 — PR #<N>

## 요약
- 총 코멘트 <n>건 → 반영 <a> · 보류/스킵 <b> · 사용자 판단 필요 <c>

## 반영 대상 (우선순위순)
- [P0] `file:line` — <지적 요지> → <수정 방향>. (출처: @reviewer, thread)
- [P1] `file:line` — <…> → <…>
- [P2] `file:line` — <…> → <…>

## 보류 / 스킵 (이유 포함)
- `file:line` — <지적> → 스킵: <근거 (무효/범위 밖/outdated 등)>

## 사용자 판단 필요
- <충돌하거나 주관적인 항목 — 어떤 선택지가 있고 무엇을 추천하는지>

## 수정 플랜
- <반영 대상들을 atomic 단위로 묶은 작업 순서. 각 단위 = 한 커밋.>

.flow/tasks/ is gitignored — do not commit this file. It is local working memory.

Step 4 — User checkpoint

Show the triage summary and the fix plan. Wait for the user to confirm what to apply, skip, and how to resolve needs-user-decision items. Do not start editing before sign-off — the whole point is the user steers which feedback is acted on.

Step 5 — Apply the approved fixes

After approval, implement per the fix plan with flow:develop discipline:

• One logical unit per commit; Conventional Commits; body 1–3 lines (max 5). See ../../references/commit-conventions.md and ../../references/tdd-policy.md.
• Where a fix has a testable behavior, add/adjust the test first.
• Reference the addressed comment in the commit body when it clarifies intent (e.g. addresses review: target=_blank handling).
• Push with flow:commit-pr (the PR updates automatically).
• Optionally reply to / resolve the threads you addressed — but only the ones the user approved. Leaving resolution to the user is also fine; say which you touched.

For invalid / skipped comments, a short reply on the thread explaining why is courteous — offer to post it, don't do it silently.

What NOT to do

• Don't blindly apply every comment. Triage validity first; reviewers are sometimes wrong or out of date.
• Don't apply before the user checkpoint. Plan → approve → fix.
• Don't resolve threads the user hasn't approved, and don't auto-merge.
• Don't bundle unrelated fixes into one commit.
• Don't run this automatically from deploy/code-review-brief. It is user-started.

Reference

• Counterpart (prepares the review): ../code-review-brief/SKILL.md
• Apply discipline: ../develop/SKILL.md, ../../references/commit-conventions.md, ../../references/tdd-policy.md
• Push/PR update: ../commit-pr/SKILL.md
• Thread reply/resolve mechanics: ../../references/inline-review-posting.md
• Project defaults: ../../references/config.md
• Doc style (Simplified Technical English, lists over tables): ../../references/doc-style.md