Review Bug Fixer

Fix valid code review findings from arbitrary review markdown files against the current branch.

Workflow

Collect review files — Read all review files the user provides (e.g., review1.md , review2.md , review3.md ). Accept any number of files in any format (structured or free-form).

Build a unified issue list — Extract every distinct finding across all files. Deduplicate: if multiple files flag the same issue (same file + same concern), merge them into one entry. Preserve the strongest/clearest description.

Triage each finding — Classify every finding into one of:

• Fix — Valid bug, logic error, security issue, or correctness problem. Apply the fix.

• Skip — Ignore if any of these apply:

• Nit or style-only (naming preferences, formatting, comment wording)

• Not actually valid (misunderstanding of the code, already handled, false positive)

• Overly defensive (adds complexity for scenarios that realistically won't occur — e.g., redundant null checks on values guaranteed by the framework, error handling for impossible states, excessive input validation on internal-only code paths)

When in doubt, lean toward skipping. The goal is to fix real bugs, not gold-plate the code.

Fix valid issues — For each "Fix" finding:

• Read the relevant source file if not already read

• Apply the minimal change that addresses the issue

• Do not refactor surrounding code or add unrelated improvements

Report summary — After all fixes, output a brief summary:

Review fixes applied

Fixed

• <file:line> — <one-line description>

Skipped (not valid / nit / overly defensive)

• <one-line description> — <reason skipped>

Guidelines

• Never create new files unless a finding explicitly requires it.

• Keep fixes minimal and focused — one concern per edit.

• If a finding is ambiguous or could go either way, skip it and mention it in the summary so the user can decide.

• If two findings conflict, skip both and flag in the summary.

• Preserve existing code style (indentation, naming conventions, patterns).