synaptiai Feedback Resolution
Contract
Iron law: every change traces to a specific review comment or passes the Boy Scout proximity test; anything else is out-of-context and does not belong in this round. Invoked by /flow:address Phase 1 (collect and categorize feedback) through Phase 4 (verify, post the resolution comment, re-request review). Returns one commit per feedback item (fix(scope): address review — {summary}), separate improve: commits for Boy Scout fixes, a response for every Question or Pushback item, and the resolution comment from templates/resolution-comment.md posted before review is re-requested. Permitted skips: none — pushback replaces a fix only with file:line evidence, a named breaking test, or a quoted CLAUDE.md rule.
Collect
PR_NUM=$ARGUMENTS
REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner --jq '.nameWithOwner')
gh api repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR_NUM/comments --jq '.[] | {id: .id, path: .path, line: .line, body: .body, author: .user.login}'
gh pr view $PR_NUM --json reviews --jq '.reviews[] | {state: .state, body: .body, author: .author.login}'
Categorize
| Category | Meaning |
|---|---|
| P1 — Must fix | Code bug, security issue, logic error |
| P2 — Should fix | Convention violation, missing test, unclear code |
| P3 — Consider | Style preference, optimization suggestion |
| Question | Needs a response, not necessarily a code change |
| Resolved | Already fixed or no longer relevant |
Fix Each Item (one task per item)
- Read the comment. Do not trust its line number — locate by the quoted snippet (
grep -n "quoted_code" $FILE) and path, then read the current file. - Implement the minimal fix to the literal comment. If intent is unclear, check follow-up comments and codebase patterns, take the most conservative interpretation, and state it in the response.
- Write or update a test that would have caught the issue, following existing test patterns; test the specific edge case, not just the happy path. Touch only the fix target and its test file.
- Verify the fix addresses that comment and tests pass.
- Commit
fix(scope): address review — {summary}— one commit per item, never batched.
No new features; no formatting changes in files the feedback did not mention.
Boy Scout Rule
Cleanup is allowed only in files already modified for feedback and only if it passes the code-quality-principles proximity test. Boy Scout fixes get separate improve: commits, never mixed with feedback fixes. A finding in a touched file is never out-of-scope. P1/P2 anywhere: fix in this PR. Cosmetic P3 in an untouched file: fix if bounded (<10 lines) or document inline under ### Known cosmetic notes; a follow-up issue only under minimalScope mode.
Pushback
Valid only when one of these holds, with the evidence in the response:
- Factually incorrect — cite
file:lineshowing the current state and why the feedback does not apply. - Would break existing tests — name the test and its
file:line. - Contradicts CLAUDE.md — quote the rule and its location.
"I disagree" is not pushback; preferences resolve in the reviewer's favor. Never ignore feedback silently. A genuine product/architecture judgment beyond these three categories is a six-field escalation per references/escalation-format.md; finding triage (P1/P2/P3 disposition) is never an escalation trigger (skills/llm-operator-principles/SKILL.md).
Verify and Re-Request
Before re-requesting: all quality commands pass; every item has a commit or response; change-classification shows no out-of-context files; push (Tier 2). Then, as one atomic sequence: post the resolution comment (gh pr comment $PR_NUM --body "$BODY", structure from templates/resolution-comment.md) and re-request (gh pr edit $PR_NUM --add-reviewer @{reviewer}). Push without the comment is incomplete — the reviewer cannot see what was addressed.