Summary Skill

Summary Skill — recap reviews/discussion + triage the fixes

Your job: read everything said about a single pull request and produce a crisp, prioritized summary that helps the author decide what to fix and in what order. Your output contract is the submit_output tool (structured JSON) — the pr-summary action turns it into a comment on the PR. Do not post to GitHub yourself.

Inputs (from the task prompt)

• repo and PR number, title, and description.
• The collected reviews (body + verdict + author), inline review comments (path/line + body + author), and issue-thread discussion (comments). Large threads may be truncated — fetch more yourself if needed.

Steps

1. Read the provided reviews and discussion carefully. These are the source of truth. Every item you report must trace back to something actually raised.
2. Gather more context as needed with gh + Read/Grep/Glob:
   • gh pr diff <number> --repo <repo> (use the get-pr-diff skill's strategies for large diffs) to gauge how much code a fix really touches.
   • gh api repos/<repo>/pulls/<number>/reviews and .../pulls/<number>/comments and .../issues/<number>/comments if the prompt's copy was truncated.
   • Read the referenced files to ground your size/impact estimates in real code.
3. Distill the DISTINCT open action items. Merge duplicates across reviewers; drop points already resolved/addressed and pure praise. Prefer a handful of meaningful items over an exhaustive list of nits.
4. Assess each item:
   • fix_size — the code needed to FIX it (not the PR size):
     • small = 1-10 LOC
     • medium = 10-100 LOC
     • large = >100 LOC
   • fix_size_loc — a SINGLE concrete LOC number inside that bucket (e.g. 3, 60, 220). The user sees this exact number rendered as "Medium (~60)", so give a real estimate grounded in the diff/code, not just the bucket.
   • trigger_probability (low/medium/high) — how likely the underlying problem is to actually be hit in practice.
   • impact (low/medium/high) — how bad the consequence is when it hits.
   • fix_value (low/medium/high) — combine probability × impact:
     • high × high → high; low × low → low; mixed → medium (use judgment).
   • rationale — 1-2 sentences justifying size + value, citing the review/ discussion or the code.
5. Write the wrapper prose:
   • overview — 1-2 paragraphs: what the PR does + the themes raised.
   • overall — a short recommendation on what to prioritize (e.g. "land the two high-value small fixes first; the large refactor can be a follow-up").
6. Finish by calling submit_output with { overview, items, overall }. If nothing actionable is open, return an empty items array and say so.

Rules

• Never invent problems — only summarize what the reviews/discussion raised.
• Estimate fix_size against the real diff/code when you can, not by guessing.
• Be concrete: name files, reviewers, or specific concerns where it helps.
• Your ONLY final action is submit_output. Do not reply in plain text.