ryanb Fix All Review Issues
Automatically find and fix all issues reported by bin/claude-review --print.
Step 1: Run the review
Run bin/claude-review --print to get the list of issues. If the command doesn't exist or fails, report back to the user and stop.
Step 2: Print the full review output verbatim
This is a required, non-optional step. Do not skip it.
Before reading any file, spawning any sub-agent, or making any edit, emit a plain-text message to the user containing the entire, unmodified stdout from bin/claude-review --print.
Rules for this step:
- Paste the output verbatim. Do not summarize, truncate, paraphrase, reorder, or omit any issue — including issues surfaced in "prior review runs" or notes.
- Do not collapse multiple issues into a "note" or parenthetical. Every issue the review reported must appear in full, with its severity, file:line, and description.
- Do not wrap it in commentary beyond a one-line header like
=== Code Review ===. - Do not stop or end the turn after printing. Immediately continue to Step 3 in the same turn — the printed output is informational for the user, not a checkpoint.
Step 3: Parse the issues
Parse the review output into individual issues. Each issue is separated by a line of dashes (--------------------------------------------------) and follows this format:
Issue N (Severity): file_path:line_number
Description...
Severity is one of: Critical, Warning, Suggestion.
If the output says "No issues found." then report that to the user and stop.
Step 4: Fix issues sequentially
Fix each issue, processing them one at a time, sequentially (not in parallel) to avoid conflicts between fixes. The current working directory is the project root.
Decide whether to fix inline or via a sub-agent:
- Inline (in this session): small, localized fixes — a typo, a one-line change, a rename, a trivial guard clause. These don't warrant the overhead of a sub-agent.
- Sub-agent: larger or context-heavy fixes — multi-file changes, fixes requiring significant exploration, or anything that would clutter the main context. Spawning a sub-agent keeps that work isolated.
Regardless of which path you take, each fix follows the same steps and gets its own individual commit:
- Read the relevant file and understand the issue
- If the issue is a bug fix, first write or update a test that fails due to the bug
- Apply the fix and verify the test now passes
- Run any related tests if applicable to verify the fix doesn't break anything
- Create a git commit for the fix with a descriptive message that includes why the change was made (e.g., the issue description or the problem it solves), not just what was changed. The reader should be able to evaluate whether the fix was appropriate from the commit message alone. Prefix the commit message with "Chore:" only for pure refactoring — bug fixes, external changes, and configuration changes are not chores.
Use your judgment on each issue:
- Critical and Warning issues should generally be fixed.
- Suggestion issues: fix these too, including small stylistic improvements. Only skip suggestions that are not beneficial or would require a large change.
- Skip any issue that seems like a false positive or doesn't make sense in context.
- If a fix would be a significant or risky change (large refactor, architectural change, behavior change that could break things), confirm with the user before applying it.
Defer issues that go against the grain of the branch:
Some fixes would push against the direction or intent of the changes in this branch — for example, reverting a deliberate design decision the branch is making, undoing a pattern the branch is intentionally introducing, or "fixing" something to match the old approach the branch is moving away from. To judge this, compare against what the branch is actually doing (e.g. git diff <base>...HEAD, where the base branch comes from git config branch.$(git branch --show-current).parent if set, otherwise main or the repo's default branch) to understand its intent.
For these issues:
- Do not fix them inline. Collect them into a deferred list that persists across all review rounds.
- Continue processing the remaining issues normally.
- Do not ask the user about deferred issues between rounds. They are all handled together at the very end in Step 6.
Step 5: Re-run the review
After all fixes are applied, run bin/claude-review --print again to check for remaining issues.
Print the full review output verbatim every round, exactly as in Step 2 — this is required and non-optional on every re-run, not just the first pass. Before reading any file, spawning any sub-agent, or making any edit, emit a plain-text message containing the entire, unmodified stdout from bin/claude-review --print, following all the same rules from Step 2 (no summarizing, truncating, paraphrasing, reordering, or omitting; one-line === Code Review === header only; do not stop after printing — continue in the same turn).
If new issues are found:
- Apply fixes for legitimate new issues following the same process as Step 4 (including deferring any that go against the grain of the branch — add them to the same deferred list; do not confirm them with the user yet).
- If the same issues keep appearing (repeating between rounds), stop fixing them.
- If only minor suggestions remain that aren't worth fixing, stop.
- Do at most 5 rounds of review-and-fix to avoid infinite loops.
Step 6: Confirm and apply deferred issues
Once all review rounds are complete, handle the accumulated deferred list (the against-the-grain issues collected across every round):
- Present the full deferred list to the user. For each, explain what the fix would do and why it appears to conflict with the branch's intent.
- Ask the user, as a numbered list of plain-text options, which deferred issues (if any) they want applied.
- Apply only the deferred fixes the user confirms, following the same process as Step 4 (inline or sub-agent as appropriate, with an individual commit per fix).
If no issues were deferred, skip this step.
Step 7: Summary
When done, provide a summary that includes:
- Issues fixed: List each issue that was fixed with a brief description
- Issues skipped: List any issues that were intentionally skipped and why
- Potential concerns: Flag any fixes that might need user review (e.g., behavior changes, edge cases, or anything you're not fully confident about)
- Remaining issues: Any issues still reported after the final review round