Pr Review Handler

PR Review Handler

Handle pull request review feedback systematically: fetch comments, analyze feedback, implement fixes, respond to reviewers, and push updates.

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• User asks to "work on PR #X" or "address PR feedback"
• User provides a PR URL and asks to fix review comments
• User asks to "respond to review comments" or "fix the PR issues"
• Bot reviewers (Devin AI, Cursor Bugbot) have left feedback
• Multiple reviewers have left comments requiring coordination

Workflow

1. Fetch PR Information

Get the PR number from the user or URL, then fetch details:

# Get PR metadata
gh pr view <number> --json number,title,state,baseRefName,headRefName,author,url

# Get reviews and their state
gh pr view <number> --json reviews --jq '.reviews[] | "Review by \(.author.login) - \(.state):\n\(.body)\n---"'

# Get review comments (line-specific feedback)
gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<number>/comments --jq '.[] | "File: \(.path)\nLine: \(.line // .original_line)\nComment by \(.user.login):\n\(.body)\n---"'

2. Analyze Feedback

For each comment, categorize by:

Priority:

• Critical: Security issues, bugs that cause crashes, data loss
• High: Bugs, performance issues, incorrect implementations
• Medium: Code quality, refactoring suggestions, best practices
• Low: Style issues, naming suggestions, optional improvements

Actionability:

• Actionable: Clear change requested with specific fix
• Question: Reviewer asking for clarification
• Discussion: Design discussion or trade-off debate
• Informational: FYI comment, no action needed

Bot vs Human:

• Bot comments (Devin AI, Cursor Bugbot): Often auto-fixable, may have suggested code
• Human comments: May require judgment, discussion, or clarification

3. Plan Changes

Create a prioritized list of changes:

1. Group related comments (e.g., all comments about validation)
2. Identify dependencies (Fix A must happen before Fix B)
3. Separate code changes from response-only comments
4. Note which comments need discussion vs implementation

4. Checkout Branch

git fetch origin
git checkout <head-branch-name>
git pull origin <head-branch-name>

5. Implement Fixes

Work through changes by priority:

For each fix:

1. Read relevant files
2. Implement the change
3. Verify the fix (run tests, build, etc.)
4. Stage changes: git add <files>

Commit strategy:

• Single fix commit: If all changes are tightly related
• Multiple commits: If addressing distinct concerns (validation, refactoring, bug fix)
• Use clear commit messages: "Fix: per feedback"

6. Respond to Comments

Respond to each comment appropriately:

For implemented fixes:

gh api -X POST repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<number>/comments/<comment-id>/replies \
  -f body="Fixed in <commit-sha>. <Brief explanation of fix>"

For questions/clarifications:

gh api -X POST repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<number>/comments/<comment-id>/replies \
  -f body="<Clear answer to question>"

For won't-fix with reasoning:

gh api -X POST repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<number>/comments/<comment-id>/replies \
  -f body="<Explanation of why not changing, with reasoning>"

Response guidelines:

• Be concise: 1-3 sentences
• Reference commit SHAs for fixes
• Explain reasoning for design decisions
• Thank reviewers for catching issues
• Ask follow-up questions if unclear

7. Push Changes

git push origin <head-branch-name>

8. Verify and Summarize

After pushing:

# Check CI status
gh pr checks <number>

# View updated PR
gh pr view <number>

Provide user with summary:

• Number of comments addressed
• Commits pushed
• Comments that need discussion
• Any blockers or questions

Common Patterns

Pattern 1: Bot Review Fixes

Bot reviews (Devin AI, Cursor Bugbot) often suggest specific code:

1. Fetch comments
2. For each bot suggestion:
   • Assess validity (is this actually an issue?)
   • Implement fix if valid
   • Respond with "Fixed in " or explain why not applicable
3. Group related bot fixes into single commit
4. Push once after addressing all bot feedback

Pattern 2: Mixed Human + Bot Reviews

1. Address critical human feedback first
2. Handle bot feedback second
3. Respond to human questions/discussions
4. Push changes
5. Respond to all comments with commit references

Pattern 3: Conflicting Feedback

When reviewers disagree:

1. Acknowledge both perspectives in responses
2. Make a reasoned decision based on project context
3. Explain decision to both reviewers
4. Offer to discuss synchronously if needed

Pattern 4: Large Refactoring Requests

When reviewer requests significant refactoring:

1. Assess scope (does this belong in this PR?)
2. If in-scope: Implement and push
3. If out-of-scope: Respond proposing separate PR/issue
4. If unclear: Ask reviewer to clarify scope expectations

Response Templates

Fixed:

Fixed in <sha>. <One sentence explaining what changed>

Won't fix with reason:

Keeping as-is because <reasoning>. <Alternative if applicable>

Clarification question:

<Answer to question>. <Additional context if helpful>

Agreement to refactor separately:

Good point. I'll address this in a follow-up PR to keep this change focused on <original scope>.

Design decision explanation:

I chose <approach> over <alternative> because <reasoning>. Open to changing if you feel strongly.

Best Practices

• Read before responding: Always fetch and read all comments before starting fixes
• Commit atomically: Each commit should address a coherent set of changes
• Respond to everything: Even "Fixed in " is better than silence
• Be professional: Thank reviewers, explain decisions, admit mistakes
• Verify before pushing: Run tests/build to avoid pushing broken code
• Update PR description: If changes significantly alter the PR, update description
• Re-request review: Use gh pr ready <number> if PR was marked as draft

Error Handling

If gh command fails:

• Check if gh is installed: gh --version
• Check if authenticated: gh auth status
• Check if PR number is valid

If git push fails:

• Check for conflicts: git status
• Pull latest: git pull origin <branch> --rebase
• Resolve conflicts if needed

If unable to implement fix:

• Respond to comment explaining blocker
• Ask reviewer for guidance
• Don't leave comment unanswered

Examples

See references/examples.md for complete examples of handling different review scenarios.