Resolve GitHub Review Comments

When to use

Use this skill when a pull request has unresolved inline review comments and you need a repeatable, auditable closure workflow.

Typical triggers (skill should activate on all of these):

URL patterns — activate immediately:

• https://github.com/<owner>/<repo>/pull/<number>#pullrequestreview-<id>
• https://github.com/<owner>/<repo>/pull/<number> (when context implies review work)

Explicit user requests:

• "Fix the review comments"
• "Address the review feedback on this PR"
• "There are unresolved review comments — fix them"
• "Resolve the conversations on this PR"
• "Handle all unresolved comments on this PR"
• "For each review comment: fix, test, commit, reply, resolve"
• "Close the open review threads"
• "Check this review and resolve the conversation when fixed"
• "Resolve outstanding review feedback"
• "The PR has changes requested — fix it"

Implicit / agent-detected:

• A PR is in "changes requested" state and the agent is asked to work on it
• A PR has unresolved review threads and the user asks to improve or merge the PR
• An agent working on a PR detects open review conversations

When not to use

Do not use this skill when:

• no unresolved review comments exist,
• the request is only to summarize or describe feedback without making code changes,
• all targeted threads are already resolved or outdated and acknowledged,
• the branch/worktree is intentionally read-only.

Required inputs

Collect before execution:

• repository owner/name,
• pull request number or URL,
• optional review id to scope comments (for example pullrequestreview-<id>),
• branch/worktree decision,
• required validation commands for the repository.

When a review URL is provided (github.com/<owner>/<repo>/pull/<number>#pullrequestreview-<id>), auto-extract owner, repo, PR number, and review id from it. Only branch/worktree choice and validation commands still need confirming.

Optional context:

• linked issue reference (for example equinor/fusion-core-tasks#432),
• commit granularity preference when comments overlap the same file.

Instructions

Follow this phase order unless the user explicitly asks for a different sequence: fetch → analyze → fix → validate → push → reply → resolve → verify. Do not interleave GitHub thread mutations with code-editing retries.

1. Ask whether to use a dedicated git worktree

   • Ask this before any other workflow questions.
   • If yes, use/create the worktree and continue there.

2. Gather unresolved comments and create working tracker

   • If a review URL with #pullrequestreview-<id> was provided, parse owner, repo, PR number, and review id from it before fetching.
   • Copy or open assets/review-resolution-checklist.md—this becomes your working document. Fill in the context section and update the comment tracking table as you work through each thread.
   • Fetch review threads for the PR and filter unresolved threads.
   • If a specific review id or review URL is provided, limit to comments from that review.
   • Within the targeted review, collect all comments associated with that review id (do not include replies from other reviews unless explicitly requested).
   • Build a working list with: thread id, comment id, parent review id, file path, original comment body, and all subsequent replies in that thread (including contributor replies).
   • Read the full reply chain for each thread — contributors may have added clarifications, constraints, or additional context that must be taken into account when deciding how to resolve the comment.
   • Capture a baseline list of targeted thread ids and unresolved-thread count before any GitHub mutation.

3. Understand, research, and judge each comment

   • Read the referenced file(s) and nearby logic.
   • Decide whether the feedback is correct, partially correct, outdated, or incorrect against the current code, requirements, and surrounding context.
   • Reviewers are not automatically correct; do not make code churn just to satisfy a comment that is stale or wrong.
   • If the feedback is correct, verify root cause and identify the smallest safe fix.
   • If the feedback is clearly incorrect or outdated, prepare a concise evidence-based reply instead of changing code unnecessarily.
   • If uncertain, inspect adjacent tests/usages before editing.
   • If doubt remains after local research, ask the user before making code changes or mutating that review thread.

4. Fix, check, commit (per comment)

   • Apply focused code/doc changes only for comments you judged valid or partially valid.
   • Run targeted checks first, then required repo checks.
   • Create one commit per comment when practical.
   • If two comments require one inseparable change, use one commit and map both comments to that commit in replies.
   • For comments you decline, record the reasoning in the tracker so the eventual reply is explicit and auditable.

5. Push once after all fixes

   • After all comment-related commits are created, push branch updates once.

6. Reply and resolve each review comment

   • Before any thread mutation, prefer structured tooling in this order:
     1. dedicated GitHub MCP review-thread reply/resolve tools exposed in the current client session,
     2. the bundled GraphQL assets or bundled scripts/resolve-review-comments.sh,
     3. never ad hoc temporary Python scripts, one-off batch helpers, or blind gh api retry loops.
   • Prepare exactly one planned reply per targeted thread from the checklist/tracker before posting anything.
   • Re-fetch the current thread state before retrying if a reply/resolve attempt errors, times out, or returns an uncertain result.
   • For each thread, these two steps are mandatory and must happen together in order unless the thread is still uncertain and waiting for user input:
     1. Post a reply on the thread: either describe what changed and include the commit hash(es), or explain why no code change was made because the comment is incorrect/outdated.
     2. Resolve the thread immediately after the reply is posted — never before.
   • Post at most one reply attempt per thread per run.
   • If an equivalent agent-authored reply already exists, do not post another reply; reuse it and only resolve if the thread is still unresolved.
   • If a different agent-authored reply already exists, stop and inspect manually rather than stacking another comment.
   • Do not resolve a thread that is still uncertain; escalate it to the user first.
   • Never resolve a thread without a reply. Never post a reply without then resolving the thread.
   • Keep replies specific: name the file/line changed and the commit, not just "fixed".

7. Verify closure state

   • Re-check review threads and confirm no targeted unresolved threads remain.
   • Confirm the targeted unresolved-thread count dropped to zero and no duplicate agent replies were created during this run.
   • Re-check latest CI status if the workflow expects green checks.

8. Ask whether to request a new review from the original review author

   • After fixes are pushed and threads are resolved, ask if the user wants to request a new review from the author of the review comments.
   • If yes, request review from that reviewer username and report that the request was sent.

9. Optional scripted execution

   • Use scripts/get-review-comments.sh to fetch matching review comments (including sub-comments associated with the review id).
   • Results are limited to the first 100 review threads and first 100 comments per thread.
   • Example test:
     • skills/.experimental/fusion-github-review-resolution/scripts/get-review-comments.sh --owner equinor --repo fusion-skills --pr 27 --review-id 3837647674
   • Use --include-outdated when you need comments from outdated matching threads.
   • Use scripts/resolve-review-comments.sh to reply+resolve matching threads with a dry-run-first duplicate-reply guard.
   • Keep default dry-run behavior; use --apply only after fixes are committed and pushed.
   • By default the script refuses to add another authenticated-user reply to a thread that already contains one; use --allow-additional-reply only after manual inspection.
   • Example dry-run:
     • skills/.experimental/fusion-github-review-resolution/scripts/resolve-review-comments.sh --owner equinor --repo fusion-skills --pr 27 --review-id 3837647674 --include-resolved
   • Example apply:
     • skills/.experimental/fusion-github-review-resolution/scripts/resolve-review-comments.sh --owner equinor --repo fusion-skills --pr 27 --review-id 3837647674 --apply --message "Addressed in <commit>: <what changed>."

Tooling map (MCP vs GraphQL)

Use GitHub MCP tools for high-level PR operations and any dedicated review-thread mutations the current client exposes. Use GraphQL for thread-level review operations when MCP coverage is missing.

Pro tip: See each .graphql file in assets for complete mutation/query syntax and parameter names.

GraphQL cost awareness

Review-resolution workflows make multiple GraphQL mutation calls (reply + resolve per thread). Be conservative:

• Mutations cost 5 secondary-limit points each (vs 1 for read queries). Budget accordingly when processing many threads.
• Pause at least 1 second between consecutive mutation calls to avoid secondary rate limits.
• Keep first/last connection arguments small (prefer first: 100 only when you need all threads in a single page).
• If a secondary rate-limit error or retry-after header is returned, stop processing and respect the indicated wait before retrying.
• Always prefer a dedicated MCP review-thread tool over raw GraphQL when the client exposes one.

Token budget guidance

• Fetch the full thread list once and reuse it for all per-thread work; do not re-fetch threads between reply and resolve.
• Budget estimate: for N unresolved threads expect ~1 list call + N reply mutations + N resolve mutations = 1 + 2N calls. A 10-thread review costs ~21 calls.
• If the thread count exceeds 15, warn the user about rate-limit risk before starting mutations and offer to batch in smaller groups.
• Cache PR metadata (title, branch, CI status, changed files) from the first fetch and reuse it for commit messages and replies.
• Avoid redundant PR-level reads between steps; the data does not change within a single resolution run.

Expected output

Return a concise report containing:

• comments processed count,
• disposition summary (fixed, declined with rationale, escalated to user),
• files changed,
• commit list (hash + message),
• validation commands run and outcomes,
• confirmation of push,
• reply/resolve confirmation per thread,
• completed checklist location,
• any remaining unresolved threads or blockers.

Linked issue usage

When an issue is provided (for example equinor/fusion-core-tasks#432):

• mention the issue in progress/final summaries,
• keep implementation aligned with issue scope,
• avoid expanding to unrelated PR automation.

Safety & constraints

• This skill is mutation-capable. Repository-local workflow instructions take precedence over inline guidance when they conflict.
• Never expose secrets or tokens in logs/replies.
• Prefer argv-based process execution over shell-interpolated command strings.
• Keep diffs minimal and scoped to review feedback.
• Do not assume review feedback is correct; reason about it against the code and requirements first.
• If a comment remains ambiguous after research, ask the user instead of guessing.
• Do not resolve a thread without posting a concrete fix reply.
• Do not claim checks passed unless commands were actually run.
• Do not force-push; use regular commits and a single push after all fixes.
• If a comment is outdated but still unresolved, either:
  • resolve with a clear explanation and commit reference, or
  • leave unresolved and report why.
• In scripted mode, keep default dry-run behavior and require explicit --apply for mutations.