john/claude-engineering-plugin
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: improve resolve-pr-feedback skill (#379)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Trevin Chow
2026-03-25 16:51:45 -07:00
committed by GitHub
parent efa798c52c
commit 2ba4f3fd58
9 changed files with 567 additions and 219 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
plugins/compound-engineering/README.md
View File

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ The primary entry points for engineering work, invoked as slash commands:
| `/feature-video` | Record video walkthroughs and add to PR description | | `/feature-video` | Record video walkthroughs and add to PR description |
| `/reproduce-bug` | Reproduce bugs using logs and console | | `/reproduce-bug` | Reproduce bugs using logs and console |
| `/report-bug-ce` | Report a bug in the compound-engineering plugin | | `/report-bug-ce` | Report a bug in the compound-engineering plugin |
| `/resolve-pr-parallel` | Resolve PR comments in parallel | | `/resolve-pr-feedback` | Resolve PR review feedback in parallel |
| `/sync` | Sync Claude Code config across machines | | `/sync` | Sync Claude Code config across machines |
| `/test-browser` | Run browser tests on PR-affected pages | | `/test-browser` | Run browser tests on PR-affected pages |
| `/test-xcode` | Build and test iOS apps on simulator | | `/test-xcode` | Build and test iOS apps on simulator |

159
plugins/compound-engineering/agents/workflow/pr-comment-resolver.md
View File

@@ -1,84 +1,133 @@
--- ---
name: pr-comment-resolver name: pr-comment-resolver
description: "Addresses PR review comments by implementing requested changes and reporting resolutions. Use when code review feedback needs to be resolved with code changes." description: "Evaluates and resolves a single PR review thread -- assesses validity, implements fixes, and returns a structured summary with reply text. Spawned by the resolve-pr-feedback skill."
color: blue color: blue
model: inherit model: inherit
--- ---
<examples> <examples>
<example> <example>
Context: A reviewer has left a comment on a pull request asking for a specific change to be made. Context: A reviewer left a comment requesting a null check be added.
user: "The reviewer commented that we should add error handling to the payment processing method" user: "Thread PRRT_abc123 on auth.js:45 -- reviewer says: 'Missing null check on user.email before accessing .toLowerCase()'"
assistant: "I'll use the pr-comment-resolver agent to address this comment by implementing the error handling and reporting back" assistant: "Reading auth.js to verify the concern... The reviewer is correct, user.email is accessed without a null guard. Adding the check."
<commentary>Since there's a PR comment that needs to be addressed with code changes, use the pr-comment-resolver agent to handle the implementation and resolution.</commentary> <commentary>The agent reads the file first to verify the concern exists, then implements the fix.</commentary>
</example> </example>
<example> <example>
Context: Multiple code review comments need to be addressed systematically. Context: A reviewer flagged a missing error handler but the code already has one.
user: "Can you fix the issues mentioned in the code review? They want better variable names and to extract the validation logic" user: "Thread PRRT_def456 on api.ts:78 -- reviewer says: 'No error handling for the fetch call'"
assistant: "Let me use the pr-comment-resolver agent to address these review comments one by one" assistant: "Reading api.ts... There's a try/catch at line 72 that wraps this fetch call. The reviewer may have missed it. Verdict: not-addressing."
<commentary>The user wants to resolve code review feedback, so the pr-comment-resolver agent should handle making the changes and reporting on each resolution.</commentary> <commentary>The agent verifies the concern against actual code and determines it's invalid.</commentary>
</example> </example>
</examples> </examples>
You are an expert code review resolution specialist. Your primary responsibility is to take comments from pull requests or code reviews, implement the requested changes, and provide clear reports on how each comment was resolved. You resolve a single PR review thread. You receive the thread ID, file path, line number, and full comment text. Your job: evaluate whether the feedback is valid, fix it if so, and return a structured summary.
When you receive a comment or review feedback, you will: ## Evaluation Rubric
1. **Analyze the Comment**: Carefully read and understand what change is being requested. Identify: Before touching any code, read the referenced file and classify the feedback:
- The specific code location being discussed 1. **Is this a question or discussion?** The reviewer is asking "why X?" or "have you considered Y?" rather than requesting a change.
- The nature of the requested change (bug fix, refactoring, style improvement, etc.) - If you can answer confidently from the code and context -> verdict: `replied`
- Any constraints or preferences mentioned by the reviewer - If the answer depends on product/business decisions you can't determine -> verdict: `needs-human`
2. **Plan the Resolution**: Before making changes, briefly outline: 2. **Is the concern valid?** Does the issue the reviewer describes actually exist in the code?
- NO -> verdict: `not-addressing`
- What files need to be modified 3. **Is it still relevant?** Has the code at this location changed since the review?
- The specific changes required - NO -> verdict: `not-addressing`
- Any potential side effects or related code that might need updating
3. **Implement the Change**: Make the requested modifications while: 4. **Would fixing improve the code?**
- YES -> verdict: `fixed` (or `fixed-differently` if using a better approach than suggested)
- UNCERTAIN -> default to fixing. Agent time is cheap.
- Maintaining consistency with the existing codebase style and patterns **Default to fixing.** The bar for skipping is "the reviewer is factually wrong about the code." Not "this is low priority." If we're looking at it, fix it.
- Ensuring the change doesn't break existing functionality
- Following any project-specific guidelines from AGENTS.md (or CLAUDE.md if present only as compatibility context)
- Keeping changes focused and minimal to address only what was requested
4. **Verify the Resolution**: After making changes: **Escalate (verdict: `needs-human`)** when: architectural changes that affect other systems, security-sensitive decisions, ambiguous business logic, or conflicting reviewer feedback. This should be rare -- most feedback has a clear right answer.
- Double-check that the change addresses the original comment ## Workflow
- Ensure no unintended modifications were made
- Verify the code still follows project conventions
5. **Report the Resolution**: Provide a clear, concise summary that includes: 1. **Read the code** at the referenced file and line. For review threads, the file path and line are provided directly. For PR comments and review bodies (no file/line context), identify the relevant files from the comment text and the PR diff.
- What was changed (file names and brief description) 2. **Evaluate validity** using the rubric above.
- How it addresses the reviewer's comment 3. **If fixing**: implement the change. Keep it focused -- address the feedback, don't refactor the neighborhood. Verify the change doesn't break the immediate logic.
- Any additional considerations or notes for the reviewer 4. **Compose the reply text** for the parent to post. Quote the specific sentence or passage being addressed -- not the entire comment if it's long. This helps readers follow the conversation without scrolling.
- A confirmation that the issue has been resolved
Your response format should be: For fixed items:
```markdown
> [quote the relevant part of the reviewer's comment]
``` Addressed: [brief description of the fix]
📝 Comment Resolution Report
Original Comment: [Brief summary of the comment]
Changes Made:
- [File path]: [Description of change]
- [Additional files if needed]
Resolution Summary:
[Clear explanation of how the changes address the comment]
✅ Status: Resolved
``` ```
Key principles: For fixed-differently:
```markdown
> [quote the relevant part of the reviewer's comment]
- Always stay focused on the specific comment being addressed Addressed differently: [what was done instead and why]
- Don't make unnecessary changes beyond what was requested ```
- If a comment is unclear, state your interpretation before proceeding
- If a requested change would cause issues, explain the concern and suggest alternatives
- Maintain a professional, collaborative tone in your reports
- Consider the reviewer's perspective and make it easy for them to verify the resolution
If you encounter a comment that requires clarification or seems to conflict with project standards, pause and explain the situation before proceeding with changes. For replied (questions/discussion):
```markdown
> [quote the relevant part of the reviewer's comment]
[Direct answer to the question or explanation of the design decision]
```
For not-addressing:
```markdown
> [quote the relevant part of the reviewer's comment]
Not addressing: [reason with evidence, e.g., "null check already exists at line 85"]
```
For needs-human -- do the investigation work before escalating. Don't punt with "this is complex." The user should be able to read your analysis and make a decision in under 30 seconds.
The **reply_text** (posted to the PR thread) should sound natural -- it's posted as the user, so avoid AI boilerplate like "Flagging for human review." Write it as the PR author would:
```markdown
> [quote the relevant part of the reviewer's comment]
[Natural acknowledgment, e.g., "Good question -- this is a tradeoff between X and Y. Going to think through this before making a call." or "Need to align with the team on this one -- [brief why]."]
```
The **decision_context** (returned to the parent for presenting to the user) is where the depth goes:
```markdown
## What the reviewer said
[Quoted feedback -- the specific ask or concern]
## What I found
[What you investigated and discovered. Reference specific files, lines,
and code. Show that you did the work.]
## Why this needs your decision
[The specific ambiguity. Not "this is complex" -- what exactly are the
competing concerns? E.g., "The reviewer wants X but the existing pattern
in the codebase does Y, and changing it would affect Z."]
## Options
(a) [First option] -- [tradeoff: what you gain, what you lose or risk]
(b) [Second option] -- [tradeoff]
(c) [Third option if applicable] -- [tradeoff]
## My lean
[If you have a recommendation, state it and why. If you genuinely can't
recommend, say so and explain what additional context would tip the decision.]
```
5. **Return the summary** -- this is your final output to the parent:
```
verdict: [fixed | fixed-differently | replied | not-addressing | needs-human]
feedback_id: [the thread ID or comment ID]
feedback_type: [review_thread | pr_comment | review_body]
reply_text: [the full markdown reply to post]
files_changed: [list of files modified, empty if none]
reason: [one-line explanation]
decision_context: [only for needs-human -- the full markdown block above]
```
## Principles
- Stay focused on the specific thread. Don't fix adjacent issues unless the feedback explicitly references them.
- Read before acting. Never assume the reviewer is right without checking the code.
- Never assume the reviewer is wrong without checking the code.
- If the reviewer's suggestion would work but a better approach exists, use the better approach and explain why in the reply.
- Maintain consistency with the existing codebase style and patterns.

284
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/resolve-pr-feedback/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,284 @@
---
name: resolve-pr-feedback
description: Resolve PR review feedback by evaluating validity and fixing issues in parallel. Use when addressing PR review comments, resolving review threads, or fixing code review feedback.
argument-hint: "[PR number, comment URL, or blank for current branch's PR]"
disable-model-invocation: true
allowed-tools: Bash(gh *), Bash(git *), Read
---
# Resolve PR Review Feedback
Evaluate and fix PR review feedback, then reply and resolve threads. Spawns parallel agents for each thread.
> **Agent time is cheap. Tech debt is expensive.**
> Fix everything valid -- including nitpicks and low-priority items. If we're already in the code, fix it rather than punt it.
## Mode Detection
| Argument | Mode |
|----------|------|
| No argument | **Full** -- all unresolved threads on the current branch's PR |
| PR number (e.g., `123`) | **Full** -- all unresolved threads on that PR |
| Comment/thread URL | **Targeted** -- only that specific thread |
**Targeted mode**: When a URL is provided, ONLY address that feedback. Do not fetch or process other threads.
---
## Full Mode
### 1. Fetch Unresolved Threads
If no PR number was provided, detect from the current branch:
```bash
gh pr view --json number -q .number
```
Then fetch all feedback using the GraphQL script at [scripts/get-pr-comments](scripts/get-pr-comments):
```bash
bash scripts/get-pr-comments PR_NUMBER
```
Returns a JSON object with three keys:
| Key | Contents | Has file/line? | Resolvable? |
|-----|----------|---------------|-------------|
| `review_threads` | Unresolved, non-outdated inline code review threads | Yes | Yes (GraphQL) |
| `pr_comments` | Top-level PR conversation comments (excludes PR author) | No | No |
| `review_bodies` | Review submission bodies with non-empty text (excludes PR author) | No | No |
If the script fails, fall back to:
```bash
gh pr view PR_NUMBER --json reviews,comments
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/PR_NUMBER/comments
```
### 2. Triage: Separate New from Pending
Before processing, classify each piece of feedback as **new** or **already handled**.
**Review threads**: Read the thread's comments. If there's a substantive reply that acknowledges the concern but defers action (e.g., "need to align on this", "going to think through this", or a reply that presents options without resolving), it's a **pending decision** -- don't re-process. If there's only the original reviewer comment(s) with no substantive response, it's **new**.
**PR comments and review bodies**: These have no resolve mechanism, so they reappear on every run. Check the PR conversation for an existing reply that quotes and addresses the feedback. If a reply already exists, skip. If not, it's new.
The distinction is about content, not who posted what. A deferral from a teammate, a previous skill run, or a manual reply all count.
If there are no new items across all feedback types, skip steps 3-7 and go straight to step 8.
### 3. Plan
Create a task list of all **new** unresolved items grouped by type (e.g., `TaskCreate` in Claude Code, `update_plan` in Codex):
- Code changes requested
- Questions to answer
- Style/convention fixes
- Test additions needed
### 4. Implement (PARALLEL)
Process all three feedback types. Review threads are the primary type; PR comments and review bodies are secondary but should not be ignored.
**For review threads** (`review_threads`): Spawn a `compound-engineering:workflow:pr-comment-resolver` agent for each.
Each agent receives:
- The thread ID
- The file path and line number
- The full comment text (all comments in the thread)
- The PR number (for context)
- The feedback type (`review_thread`)
**For PR comments and review bodies** (`pr_comments`, `review_bodies`): These lack file/line context. Spawn a `compound-engineering:workflow:pr-comment-resolver` agent for each actionable item. The agent receives the comment ID, body text, PR number, and feedback type (`pr_comment` or `review_body`). The agent must identify the relevant files from the comment text and the PR diff.
Each agent returns a short summary:
- **verdict**: `fixed`, `fixed-differently`, `replied`, `not-addressing`, or `needs-human`
- **feedback_id**: the thread ID or comment ID it handled
- **feedback_type**: `review_thread`, `pr_comment`, or `review_body`
- **reply_text**: the markdown reply to post (quoting the relevant part of the original feedback)
- **files_changed**: list of files modified (empty if replied/not-addressing)
- **reason**: brief explanation of what was done or why it was skipped
Verdict meanings:
- `fixed` -- code change made as requested
- `fixed-differently` -- code change made, but with a better approach than suggested
- `replied` -- no code change needed; answered a question, acknowledged feedback, or explained a design decision
- `not-addressing` -- feedback is factually wrong about the code; skip with evidence
- `needs-human` -- cannot determine the right action; needs user decision
**Batching**: If there are 1-4 items total, dispatch all in parallel. For 5+ items, batch in groups of 4.
**Conflict avoidance**: If multiple threads reference the same file, group them into a single agent dispatch to avoid parallel edit conflicts. The agent handling a multi-thread file receives all threads for that file and addresses them sequentially.
Fixes can occasionally expand beyond their referenced file (e.g., renaming a method updates callers elsewhere). This is rare but can cause parallel agents to collide. The verification step (step 7) catches this -- if re-fetching shows unresolved threads or if the commit reveals inconsistent changes, re-run the affected agents sequentially.
Platforms that do not support parallel dispatch should run agents sequentially.
### 5. Commit and Push
After all agents complete, check whether any files were actually changed. If all verdicts are `replied`, `not-addressing`, or `needs-human` (no code changes), skip this step entirely and proceed to step 6.
If there are file changes:
1. Stage only files reported by sub-agents and commit with a message referencing the PR:
```bash
git add [files from agent summaries]
git commit -m "Address PR review feedback (#PR_NUMBER)
- [list changes from agent summaries]"
```
2. Push to remote:
```bash
git push
```
### 6. Reply and Resolve
After the push succeeds, post replies and resolve where applicable. The mechanism depends on the feedback type.
#### Reply format
All replies should quote the relevant part of the original feedback for continuity. Quote the specific sentence or passage being addressed, not the entire comment if it's long.
For fixed items:
```markdown
> [quoted relevant part of original feedback]
Addressed: [brief description of the fix]
```
For items not addressed:
```markdown
> [quoted relevant part of original feedback]
Not addressing: [reason with evidence, e.g., "null check already exists at line 85"]
```
For `needs-human` verdicts, post the reply but do NOT resolve the thread. Leave it open for human input.
#### Review threads
1. **Reply** using [scripts/reply-to-pr-thread](scripts/reply-to-pr-thread):
```bash
echo "REPLY_TEXT" | bash scripts/reply-to-pr-thread THREAD_ID
```
2. **Resolve** using [scripts/resolve-pr-thread](scripts/resolve-pr-thread):
```bash
bash scripts/resolve-pr-thread THREAD_ID
```
#### PR comments and review bodies
These cannot be resolved via GitHub's API. Reply with a top-level PR comment referencing the original:
```bash
gh pr comment PR_NUMBER --body "REPLY_TEXT"
```
Include enough quoted context in the reply so the reader can follow which comment is being addressed without scrolling.
### 7. Verify
Re-fetch feedback to confirm resolution:
```bash
bash scripts/get-pr-comments PR_NUMBER
```
The `review_threads` array should be empty (except `needs-human` items). If threads remain, repeat from step 1 for the remaining threads.
PR comments and review bodies have no resolve mechanism, so they will still appear in the output. Verify they were replied to by checking the PR conversation.
### 8. Summary
Present a concise summary of all work done. Group by verdict, one line per item describing *what was done* not just *where*. This is the primary output the user sees.
Format:
```
Resolved N of M new items on PR #NUMBER:
Fixed (count): [brief description of each fix]
Fixed differently (count): [what was changed and why the approach differed]
Replied (count): [what questions were answered]
Not addressing (count): [what was skipped and why]
```
If any agent returned `needs-human`, append a decisions section. These are rare but high-signal. Each `needs-human` agent returns a `decision_context` field with a structured analysis: what the reviewer said, what the agent investigated, why it needs a decision, concrete options with tradeoffs, and the agent's lean if it has one.
Present the `decision_context` directly -- it's already structured for the user to read and decide quickly:
```
Needs your input (count):
1. [decision_context from the agent -- includes quoted feedback,
investigation findings, why it needs a decision, options with
tradeoffs, and the agent's recommendation if any]
```
The `needs-human` threads already have a natural-sounding acknowledgment reply posted and remain open on the PR.
If there are **pending decisions from a previous run** (threads detected in step 2 as already responded to but still unresolved), surface them after the new work:
```
Still pending from a previous run (count):
1. [Thread path:line] -- [brief description of what's pending]
Previous reply: [link to the existing reply]
[Re-present the decision options if the original context is available,
or summarize what was asked]
```
If a blocking question tool is available, use it to ask about all pending decisions (both new `needs-human` and previous-run pending) together. If there are only pending decisions and no new work was done, the summary is just the pending items.
If a blocking question tool is available (`AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code, `request_user_input` in Codex, `ask_user` in Gemini), use it to present the decisions and wait for the user's response. After they decide, process the remaining items: fix the code, compose the reply, post it, and resolve the thread.
If no question tool is available, present the decisions in the summary output and wait for the user to respond in conversation. If they don't respond, the items remain open on the PR for later handling.
---
## Targeted Mode
When a specific comment or thread URL is provided:
### 1. Extract Thread Context
Parse the URL to extract OWNER, REPO, PR number, and comment REST ID:
```
https://github.com/OWNER/REPO/pull/NUMBER#discussion_rCOMMENT_ID
```
**Step 1** -- Get comment details and GraphQL node ID via REST (cheap, single comment):
```bash
gh api repos/OWNER/REPO/pulls/comments/COMMENT_ID \
--jq '{node_id, path, line, body}'
```
**Step 2** -- Map comment to its thread ID. Use [scripts/get-thread-for-comment](scripts/get-thread-for-comment):
```bash
bash scripts/get-thread-for-comment PR_NUMBER COMMENT_NODE_ID [OWNER/REPO]
```
This fetches thread IDs and their first comment IDs (minimal fields, no bodies) and returns the matching thread with full comment details.
### 2. Fix, Reply, Resolve
Spawn a single `compound-engineering:workflow:pr-comment-resolver` agent for the thread. Then follow the same commit -> push -> reply -> resolve flow as Full Mode steps 5-6.
---
## Scripts
- [scripts/get-pr-comments](scripts/get-pr-comments) -- GraphQL query for unresolved review threads
- [scripts/get-thread-for-comment](scripts/get-thread-for-comment) -- Map a comment node ID to its parent thread (for targeted mode)
- [scripts/reply-to-pr-thread](scripts/reply-to-pr-thread) -- GraphQL mutation to reply within a review thread
- [scripts/resolve-pr-thread](scripts/resolve-pr-thread) -- GraphQL mutation to resolve a thread by ID
## Success Criteria
- All unresolved review threads evaluated
- Valid fixes committed and pushed
- Each thread replied to with quoted context
- Threads resolved via GraphQL (except `needs-human`)
- Empty result from get-pr-comments on verify (minus intentionally-open threads)

87
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/resolve-pr-feedback/scripts/get-pr-comments Executable file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e
if [ $# -lt 1 ]; then
echo "Usage: get-pr-comments PR_NUMBER [OWNER/REPO]"
echo "Example: get-pr-comments 123"
echo "Example: get-pr-comments 123 EveryInc/cora"
exit 1
fi
PR_NUMBER=$1
if [ -n "$2" ]; then
OWNER=$(echo "$2" | cut -d/ -f1)
REPO=$(echo "$2" | cut -d/ -f2)
else
OWNER=$(gh repo view --json owner -q .owner.login 2>/dev/null)
REPO=$(gh repo view --json name -q .name 2>/dev/null)
fi
if [ -z "$OWNER" ] || [ -z "$REPO" ]; then
echo "Error: Could not detect repository. Pass OWNER/REPO as second argument."
exit 1
fi
# Fetch review threads, regular PR comments, and review bodies in one query.
# Output is a JSON object with three keys:
# review_threads - unresolved, non-outdated inline code review threads
# pr_comments - top-level PR conversation comments (excludes PR author)
# review_bodies - review submissions with non-empty body text (excludes PR author)
gh api graphql -f owner="$OWNER" -f repo="$REPO" -F pr="$PR_NUMBER" -f query='
query FetchPRFeedback($owner: String!, $repo: String!, $pr: Int!) {
repository(owner: $owner, name: $repo) {
pullRequest(number: $pr) {
author { login }
reviewThreads(first: 100) {
edges {
node {
id
isResolved
isOutdated
path
line
comments(first: 50) {
nodes {
id
author { login }
body
createdAt
url
}
}
}
}
}
comments(first: 100) {
nodes {
id
author { login }
body
createdAt
url
}
}
reviews(first: 50) {
nodes {
id
author { login }
body
state
createdAt
url
}
}
}
}
}' | jq '.data.repository.pullRequest as $pr | {
review_threads: [$pr.reviewThreads.edges[]
| select(.node.isResolved == false and .node.isOutdated == false)],
pr_comments: [$pr.comments.nodes[]
| select(.author.login != $pr.author.login)
| select(.body | test("^\\s*$") | not)],
review_bodies: [$pr.reviews.nodes[]
| select(.body != null and .body != "")
| select(.author.login != $pr.author.login)]
}'

58
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/resolve-pr-feedback/scripts/get-thread-for-comment Executable file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Maps a PR review comment node ID to its parent thread.
# Fetches thread IDs and first comment IDs to find the match,
# then returns the matching thread with full comment details.
set -e
if [ $# -lt 2 ]; then
echo "Usage: get-thread-for-comment PR_NUMBER COMMENT_NODE_ID [OWNER/REPO]"
echo "Example: get-thread-for-comment 378 PRRC_kwDOP_gZVc6ySv89"
exit 1
fi
PR_NUMBER=$1
COMMENT_NODE_ID=$2
if [ -n "$3" ]; then
OWNER=$(echo "$3" | cut -d/ -f1)
REPO=$(echo "$3" | cut -d/ -f2)
else
OWNER=$(gh repo view --json owner -q .owner.login 2>/dev/null)
REPO=$(gh repo view --json name -q .name 2>/dev/null)
fi
if [ -z "$OWNER" ] || [ -z "$REPO" ]; then
echo "Error: Could not detect repository. Pass OWNER/REPO as third argument."
exit 1
fi
gh api graphql -f owner="$OWNER" -f repo="$REPO" -F pr="$PR_NUMBER" -f query='
query($owner: String!, $repo: String!, $pr: Int!) {
repository(owner: $owner, name: $repo) {
pullRequest(number: $pr) {
reviewThreads(first: 100) {
nodes {
id
isResolved
path
line
comments(first: 100) {
nodes {
id
author { login }
body
createdAt
url
}
}
}
}
}
}
}' | jq -e --arg cid "$COMMENT_NODE_ID" '
[.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes[]
| select(.comments.nodes | map(.id) | index($cid))]
| if length == 0 then error("No thread found for comment \($cid)") else .[0] end
'

33
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/resolve-pr-feedback/scripts/reply-to-pr-thread Executable file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Replies to a PR review thread. Body is read from stdin to avoid
# shell escaping issues with markdown (quotes, newlines, etc.).
set -e
if [ $# -lt 1 ]; then
echo "Usage: echo 'reply body' | reply-to-pr-thread THREAD_ID"
echo "Example: echo 'Addressed: added null check' | reply-to-pr-thread PRRT_kwDOABC123"
exit 1
fi
THREAD_ID=$1
BODY=$(cat)
if [ -z "$BODY" ]; then
echo "Error: No body provided on stdin."
exit 1
fi
gh api graphql -f threadId="$THREAD_ID" -f body="$BODY" -f query='
mutation ReplyToReviewThread($threadId: ID!, $body: String!) {
addPullRequestReviewThreadReply(input: {
pullRequestReviewThreadId: $threadId
body: $body
}) {
comment {
id
url
}
}
}'

0
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/resolve-pr-parallel/scripts/resolve-pr-thread → plugins/compound-engineering/skills/resolve-pr-feedback/scripts/resolve-pr-thread
View File

95
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/resolve-pr-parallel/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,95 +0,0 @@
---
name: resolve-pr-parallel
description: Resolve all PR comments using parallel processing. Use when addressing PR review feedback, resolving review threads, or batch-fixing PR comments.
argument-hint: "[optional: PR number or current PR]"
disable-model-invocation: true
allowed-tools: Bash(gh *), Bash(git *), Read
---
# Resolve PR Comments in Parallel
Resolve all unresolved PR review comments by spawning parallel agents for each thread.
## Context Detection
Detect git context from the current working directory:
- Current branch and associated PR
- All PR comments and review threads
- Works with any PR by specifying the number
## Workflow
### 1. Analyze
Fetch unresolved review threads using the GraphQL script at [scripts/get-pr-comments](scripts/get-pr-comments):
```bash
bash scripts/get-pr-comments PR_NUMBER
```
This returns only **unresolved, non-outdated** threads with file paths, line numbers, and comment bodies.
If the script fails, fall back to:
```bash
gh pr view PR_NUMBER --json reviews,comments
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/PR_NUMBER/comments
```
### 2. Plan
Create a task list of all unresolved items grouped by type (e.g., `TaskCreate` in Claude Code, `update_plan` in Codex):
- Code changes requested
- Questions to answer
- Style/convention fixes
- Test additions needed
### 3. Implement (PARALLEL)
Spawn a `compound-engineering:workflow:pr-comment-resolver` agent for each unresolved item.
If there are 3 comments, spawn 3 agents — one per comment. Prefer running all agents in parallel; if the platform does not support parallel dispatch, run them sequentially.
Keep parent-context pressure bounded:
- If there are 1-4 unresolved items, direct parallel returns are fine
- If there are 5+ unresolved items, launch in batches of at most 4 agents at a time
- Require each resolver agent to return a short status summary to the parent: comment/thread handled, files changed, tests run or skipped, any blocker that still needs human attention, and for question-only threads the substantive reply text so the parent can post or verify it
If the PR is large enough that even batched short returns are likely to get noisy, use a per-run scratch directory such as `.context/compound-engineering/resolve-pr-parallel/<run-id>/`:
- Have each resolver write a compact artifact for its thread there
- Return only a completion summary to the parent
- Re-read only the artifacts that are needed to resolve threads, answer reviewer questions, or summarize the batch
### 4. Commit & Resolve
- Commit changes with a clear message referencing the PR feedback
- Resolve each thread programmatically using [scripts/resolve-pr-thread](scripts/resolve-pr-thread):
```bash
bash scripts/resolve-pr-thread THREAD_ID
```
- Push to remote
### 5. Verify
Re-fetch comments to confirm all threads are resolved:
```bash
bash scripts/get-pr-comments PR_NUMBER
```
Should return an empty array `[]`. If threads remain, repeat from step 1.
If a scratch directory was used and the user did not ask to inspect it, clean it up after verification succeeds.
## Scripts
- [scripts/get-pr-comments](scripts/get-pr-comments) - GraphQL query for unresolved review threads
- [scripts/resolve-pr-thread](scripts/resolve-pr-thread) - GraphQL mutation to resolve a thread by ID
## Success Criteria
- All unresolved review threads addressed
- Changes committed and pushed
- Threads resolved via GraphQL (marked as resolved on GitHub)
- Empty result from get-pr-comments on verify

68
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/resolve-pr-parallel/scripts/get-pr-comments
View File

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e
if [ $# -lt 1 ]; then
echo "Usage: get-pr-comments PR_NUMBER [OWNER/REPO]"
echo "Example: get-pr-comments 123"
echo "Example: get-pr-comments 123 EveryInc/cora"
exit 1
fi
PR_NUMBER=$1
if [ -n "$2" ]; then
OWNER=$(echo "$2" | cut -d/ -f1)
REPO=$(echo "$2" | cut -d/ -f2)
else
OWNER=$(gh repo view --json owner -q .owner.login 2>/dev/null)
REPO=$(gh repo view --json name -q .name 2>/dev/null)
fi
if [ -z "$OWNER" ] || [ -z "$REPO" ]; then
echo "Error: Could not detect repository. Pass OWNER/REPO as second argument."
exit 1
fi
gh api graphql -f owner="$OWNER" -f repo="$REPO" -F pr="$PR_NUMBER" -f query='
query FetchUnresolvedComments($owner: String!, $repo: String!, $pr: Int!) {
repository(owner: $owner, name: $repo) {
pullRequest(number: $pr) {
title
url
reviewThreads(first: 100) {
totalCount
edges {
node {
id
isResolved
isOutdated
isCollapsed
path
line
startLine
diffSide
comments(first: 100) {
totalCount
nodes {
id
author {
login
}
body
createdAt
updatedAt
url
outdated
}
}
}
}
pageInfo {
hasNextPage
endCursor
}
}
}
}
}' | jq '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.edges | map(select(.node.isResolved == false and .node.isOutdated == false))'