Address Review

Address the review feedback on the current PR. Every comment gets a response: a change, or a reasoned reply explaining why not. Don't silently skip any.

Phase 1: Gather the feedback

1. Get the review comments for the current branch's request, using the adapter below. Pull the inline (line-level) comments as well as the summary review bodies; the inline ones are where the substance usually is. If there's no request yet, no CLI, or no credentials, ask the user to paste the feedback and carry on from there.
2. Read CLAUDE.md and any .claude/rules/*.md covering the touched files — a fix must still satisfy the repo's conventions.
3. Build the change list. For each comment, capture: the file/line, what's asked, and the reviewer's intent (not just the literal words). Group comments that touch the same code so you fix each spot once.

{{FORGE}}

Phase 2: Triage each comment

Sort every comment into one of:

• Accept & fix — a real issue or a clear improvement. Most comments.
• Accept with a different fix — the concern is valid but the reviewer's suggested change isn't the best one; do the better fix and say why in the reply.
• Discuss / decline — you believe the current code is correct, or the change is out of scope. This is legitimate, but it requires a specific, respectful reason, not a dismissal. When unsure whether to decline, ask the user rather than deciding unilaterally.

State the triage before editing, so the user can redirect if they disagree.

Phase 3: Apply the changes

1. Make each accepted change as a minimal, targeted edit — fix what the comment raised, don't refactor around it.
2. Check for siblings. If a comment points at a pattern (not just one line), grep for the same pattern elsewhere in the diff and fix those too, unless the reviewer scoped it to the one spot.
3. Re-verify after editing — run the tests/lint from CLAUDE.md. A fix that breaks the suite isn't done.
4. Keep the changes reviewable. One logical follow-up; don't fold in unrelated work that a re-review would have to untangle.

Phase 4: Reply and hand off

1. Draft a reply per comment (or per group): what you changed and where, or — for a decline — the specific reason. One sentence is the target; two is the ceiling. "Fixed, moved the check into validate_session." is a complete reply.
2. Summarize the follow-up for the user: which comments led to changes, which were declined and why, and the suggested commit message (fix: address review feedback or per the repo convention). A few lines, not a report; they can read the diff.
3. Do not push, resolve threads, or re-request review unless the user asks — leave those actions to them.

{{HUMANIZE}}

Rules

• Respond to every comment — a change or a reason. Silence on a comment reads as ignoring the reviewer.
• Critique the code, never the reviewer; when you decline, give evidence, not a brush-off. Read a blunt comment for its substance, not its tone, and reply civilly regardless.
• Don't over-correct: fix what was raised, not the whole file. Scope creep in a review-response commit makes the re-review harder.
• If two comments conflict, or a comment contradicts CLAUDE.md, surface the conflict to the user instead of silently picking one.

When NOT to use

• There's no review yet — the user wants their branch reviewed; use the review skill.
• The feedback is a full redesign, not line comments — that's a re-plan; use the plan skill.
• The user only wants the reply text drafted, not the code changed — draft the replies and skip the edit phase.