PR Comments — Triage & Fix

Fetch all unresolved PR review threads, deduplicate across bots, triage by severity, and produce a fix plan for human approval. After sign-off, resolve ignored threads and spawn subagents to fix real issues.

Invocation

• /pr-comments — auto-detect PR from current branch

• /pr-comments 608 — specific PR number

Phase 1: Fetch Unresolved Threads

1a. Identify the PR

Auto-detect from current branch, or use the provided PR number

gh pr view --json number,headRepositoryOwner,title,headRefName,baseRefName

1b. Fetch ALL review threads via GraphQL

Use GraphQL to get thread resolution status — this is the only reliable source of truth.

gh api graphql -f query=' { repository(owner: "{OWNER}", name: "{REPO_NAME}") { pullRequest(number: {PR_NUMBER}) { reviewThreads(first: 100) { nodes { id isResolved isOutdated path line comments(first: 20) { nodes { databaseId author { login } body path line originalLine createdAt url } } } } } } }'

Paginate if hasNextPage is true. Collect every thread.

1c. Filter to unresolved threads only

• Keep threads where isResolved == false

• Note isOutdated — the diff may have moved; flag these for extra scrutiny

1d. Also fetch issue-level comments (PR conversation tab)

gh api --paginate "repos/{OWNER}/{REPO_NAME}/issues/{PR_NUMBER}/comments?per_page=100"

Filter to comments from human reviewers only (not bots). These are often the most important.

Phase 2: Deduplicate & Classify

Multiple bots often flag the same underlying issue on the same file/line. Group them.

2a. Group by file + line range

Threads targeting the same file within a 5-line range likely address the same issue. Merge them into a single logical issue.

2b. Parse severity from bot comments

Each bot uses different severity markers:

Bot Format Example

coderabbitai[bot]

Emoji badge in body 🟠 Major , 🟡 Minor , 🔴 Critical

gemini-code-assist[bot]

SVG image alt text ![medium] , ![high] , ![low]

chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]

Shield badge P1 , P2 , P3

devin-ai-integration[bot]

HTML comment metadata Parse devin-review-comment JSON for severity

Map all to a unified scale: Critical > Major > Medium > Minor > Nitpick

When multiple bots flag the same issue at different severities, take the highest.

2c. Classify each issue

For each deduplicated issue, determine:

• Category: security | bug | correctness | performance | accessibility | style | config | docs

• Severity: Critical / Major / Medium / Minor / Nitpick

• Confidence: How likely is this a real problem vs. a false positive?

• Human reviewer comments → always high confidence

• Multiple bots flagging the same thing → high confidence

• Single bot, no context about codebase patterns → low confidence

• Bot flagging a SKILL.md or config file → usually noise

2d. Identify ignore candidates

Flag as ignore candidate if ANY of these apply:

• Bot comment on a non-source file (.md , config, migrations) with no security implications

• Style/nitpick-level feedback that contradicts project conventions (check AGENTS.md)

• Bot flagging something that was intentionally designed that way (check git blame / PR description)

• Outdated thread (isOutdated == true ) where the code has already changed

• Duplicate of another issue already being addressed

• Bot suggesting a pattern that contradicts a loaded skill or AGENTS.md convention

Phase 3: Write the Fix Plan

Write the plan to .claude/scratchpad/pr-{PR_NUMBER}-review-plan.md .

Plan Format

PR #{PR_NUMBER} Review Plan — "{PR_TITLE}"

Branch: {branch_name} PR URL: {pr_url} Threads fetched: {total} total, {unresolved} unresolved, {outdated} outdated Bot breakdown: {count per bot}

Issues to Fix (ordered by severity)

Only include issues that will actually be fixed. Items classified as ignored in Phase 2 go EXCLUSIVELY in the Ignored section below — never list them here.

1. [{SEVERITY}] {Short description of the issue}

• File: path/to/file.ts#L{line}
• Category: {category}
• Flagged by: @bot1, @bot2
• Comment URL: {url to first comment}
• What's wrong: {1-2 sentence explanation in plain english}
• Suggested fix: {concrete description of what to change}

Original comment (from @bot1): {relevant excerpt — strip boilerplate/badges}

2. [{SEVERITY}] ...

Ignored (with reasoning)

Each ignored item appears ONLY here — not duplicated in the Issues to Fix section above.

I1. @{bot} on path/to/file.ts#L{line}

• Why ignored: {specific reason — e.g., "contradicts project convention in AGENTS.md to not use explicit return types", "outdated thread, code already changed", "style nitpick on a config file"}
• Original comment: {link to comment}

I2. ...

Summary

• {N} issues to fix across {M} files
• {K} comments ignored ({reasons breakdown})
• Estimated complexity: {low/medium/high}

Present to user

After writing the plan, tell the user:

Review plan written to .claude/scratchpad/pr-{PR_NUMBER}-review-plan.md . {N} issues to fix, {K} ignored. Please review and confirm to proceed.

STOP HERE. Wait for the user to review and approve. Do not proceed until they confirm.

Phase 4: Execute (after human approval)

Once the user approves (they may edit the plan first — re-read it before executing):

4a. Resolve ignored threads

For each ignored issue, resolve the GitHub thread with a brief comment explaining why:

Post a reply comment on the thread

gh api -X POST "repos/{OWNER}/{REPO_NAME}/pulls/{PR_NUMBER}/comments"
-f body="Acknowledged — {reason}. Resolving."
-F in_reply_to={COMMENT_DATABASE_ID}

Resolve the thread via GraphQL

gh api graphql -f query=' mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: { threadId: "{THREAD_NODE_ID}" }) { thread { isResolved } } }'

Use concise, specific dismiss reasons. Examples:

• "Acknowledged — project convention is to omit explicit return types (see AGENTS.md). Resolving."

• "Acknowledged — outdated thread, code has been refactored. Resolving."

• "Acknowledged — this is intentional; sessionStorage is only accessed client-side. Resolving."

4b. Fix real issues with subagents

Group related issues that touch the same file or logical unit. Then launch parallel subagents (one per file or logical group) using the Task tool:

Launch a Task subagent (subagent_type: "general-purpose") for each group:

Prompt template: "Fix the following PR review issue(s) on branch {BRANCH}:

Issue: {description} File: {path}#{line} What's wrong: {explanation} Suggested fix: {fix description}

Read the file, understand the surrounding context, and make the fix. After fixing, verify the change is correct. Do NOT touch unrelated code."

• Use subagent_type: "general-purpose" for each group

• Launch groups in parallel where they touch different files

• Sequential if they touch the same file

4c. After all subagents complete

• Resolve the fixed threads on GitHub (same GraphQL mutation as 4a, with a comment like "Fixed in latest push.")

• Report results to the user

Known Bot Noise Patterns

These are almost always ignorable — but verify before dismissing:

• coderabbit on SKILL.md / AGENTS.md files — flags markdown structure, irrelevant

• gemini suggesting explicit return types — check project AGENTS.md or lint config before accepting

• devin HTML comment metadata — often duplicates what coderabbit already found

• codex P3 style suggestions — usually preferences, not bugs

• Any bot suggesting as casts or non-null assertions — check project conventions before accepting

• vercel[bot] deployment comments — pure noise, never actionable

• Bot comments on migration files — almost always false positives (auto-generated code)