everyinc--compound-engineering-plugin/skills/ce-resolve-pr-feedback/references/full-mode.md

Full Mode

Read this reference when Mode Detection (in SKILL.md) routes to Full Mode — no argument given, a PR number was provided, or a whole-PR URL (.../pull/N with no comment fragment) was provided. Full mode processes all unresolved threads on the PR. When the argument is a PR URL, parse the host, OWNER/REPO, and number from it — the host feeds the GH_HOST prefix below, and OWNER/REPO targets the correct repo for a fork→upstream PR.

The shape: fetch once, judge centrally, fan out only the fixes. The orchestrator (you) holds every thread from a single fetch, so the legitimacy judgment happens in your context — where you can dedup reads, spot a systematically-wrong reviewer across threads, and weigh the author's design intent. Subagents are dispatched only to implement fixes you've already approved. Do not fan out the judgment: spinning a subagent per thread to decide validity re-pays per-agent overhead, re-reads the same files, and throws away the cross-thread view — and you'd pay it even for threads that turn out to be skips.

1. Fetch Unresolved Threads

If no PR number was provided, detect from the current branch:

gh pr view --json number -q .number

Then fetch all feedback using the GraphQL script at scripts/get-pr-comments. Set SKILL_DIR to the absolute directory you loaded the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md from — the Bash tool's CWD is the user's project, not the skill dir, and shell state does not persist between Bash calls, so set it inline in each block below that runs a bundled script. If the bundled script is missing on disk the call fails plainly; fall back to the gh commands shown after this block.

GitHub Enterprise host. The bundled gh api graphql scripts hit gh's default host unless told otherwise, so on a GHE PR they would wrongly target github.com. Derive the host: if the caller passed a full PR URL, take its host; otherwise read it from gh repo view --json url -q .url. Then — because shell state does not persist between separate Bash calls — pass the host as a GH_HOST=<host> env prefix inline on every bundled-script call (gh api honors GH_HOST as the request host). A single export in one block does not carry to the reply/resolve/verify blocks that run as later Bash calls, which is why each call below shows the prefix. On github.com, drop the GH_HOST=<host> prefix entirely.

PR_HOST=$(printf '%s' "<pr-url-if-one-was-passed>" | sed -n 's#^https\?://\([^/]*\)/.*#\1#p');
[ -z "$PR_HOST" ] && PR_HOST=$(gh repo view --json url -q .url 2>/dev/null | sed -n 's#^https\?://\([^/]*\)/.*#\1#p');
echo "$PR_HOST"   # github.com -> no prefix; any other host -> prefix GH_HOST=<host> on each script call below

SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md>";
GH_HOST=<derived-host> bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/get-pr-comments" PR_NUMBER OWNER/REPO   # omit GH_HOST=<derived-host> on github.com

Pass the base OWNER/REPO (parsed from the PR URL, when one was given) as the second arg. get-pr-comments otherwise falls back to gh repo view in the current checkout — so for a fork→upstream PR handed in as a URL, omitting it would fetch review feedback from the fork (or fail) instead of the upstream base repo. Every get-pr-comments call below (fetch and verify) takes the same OWNER/REPO.

Returns a JSON object with three keys:

Key	Contents	Has file/line?	Resolvable?
review_threads	Unresolved inline code review threads (includes outdated; each carries its isOutdated flag so line drift can be accounted for)	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:

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. Apply two filters in order:

1. Actionability: Skip items that contain no actionable feedback or questions to answer. Examples: review wrapper text ("Here are some automated review suggestions..."), approvals ("this looks great!"), status badges ("Validated"), CI summaries with no follow-up asks. If there's nothing to fix, answer, or decide, it's not actionable -- drop it from the count entirely.
2. Already replied: For actionable items, 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. Similarly, actionability is about content -- bot feedback that requests a specific code change is actionable; a bot's boilerplate header wrapping those requests is not.

Silent drop. Non-actionable items are dropped without narration. Do not announce, list, or count dropped items in conversation, the task list, or the step 9 summary. Review-bot wrappers from CodeRabbit, Codex, Gemini Code Assist, and Copilot (bodies like "Here are some automated review suggestions...") commonly appear here -- recognize them by their boilerplate content, drop silently. Only CI/status bot summaries (Codecov) are pre-filtered at the script level; everything else relies on this content-aware check so bot format changes cannot silently hide actionable findings.

If there are no new items across all feedback types, skip steps 3-8 and go straight to step 9.

3. Consolidate & Decide (the legitimacy gate)

This is the gate. Judge every new item here, in your own context, before any fix is dispatched. Apply the rubric in references/evaluation-rubric.md (read it now) across the whole batch at once.

Working over the full set lets you do what a per-thread subagent can't:

• Dedup reads by file — read a file once and judge all its threads together.
• Cross-item reasoning — cluster findings by root assumption; a source (often a bot) that's wrong in one place is suspect across its siblings; converging requests from independent reviewers are a strong fix signal.
• Selective depth — clear nits need only the comment plus the diff line; deep-read (callers, invariants, git blame/PR rationale for author intent) only where a finding is contestable or the code looks deliberate. That deep read on the contestable minority is what catches a confidently-wrong reviewer.

Produce a verdict per item and sort into three lists:

• fix-list — fixed / fixed-differently. These get dispatched to fixers in step 4. For each, note the file/location (and for outdated threads, the resolved location or anchor) and a one-line "what to change." Class fix: when the cross-item pass (rubric: "A validated finding can span sites this PR itself introduced") found equivalent same-invariant sites this PR touched, record them as one fix-list item that enumerates every concrete location (file:line) and lists every feedback ID it covers — one class item → one fixer (step 4), so the sites are edited coherently and every covered thread/comment is replied-to and resolved from that single result. Enumerate only sites whose treatment is unambiguous; a site needing its own judgment stays a separate item.
• reply-list — replied / not-addressing / declined. No code change. Compose the reply text now per the rubric (you have the evidence) and carry it to step 7.
• human-list — needs-human. Compose decision_context now; carry to steps 7 and 9.

Create a task list of all new items (e.g., TaskCreate in Claude Code, update_plan in Codex) tagged with their verdict, so progress is visible.

At scale. If the batch is large (many threads spanning many files) and judging them all inline would overflow your context, process the consolidation in groups (e.g., file-clustered groups of ~8-10 threads), emitting the three lists incrementally. Don't fan the judgment out to subagents to avoid this — batch it instead.

If the fix-list is empty (all verdicts are reply/needs-human), skip steps 4-6 and go to step 7.

4. Fix (PARALLEL — fix-list only)

Dispatch fixers only for fix-list items. Reply-list and human-list items never reach a subagent.

Dispatch

Read references/agents/pr-comment-resolver.md and spawn a generic subagent seeded with that fixer prompt for each fix-list item. Do not dispatch a standalone agent by type/name. The fixer is a pure executor: the validity judgment is already done, so it implements and returns — it does not re-judge worthwhileness.

Each fixer receives:

• The feedback_id (thread ID or comment ID) and feedback type.
• The file path and location fields: line, originalLine, startLine, originalStartLine (for outdated threads, the resolved location/anchor from step 3).
• The reviewer's comment text.
• Your step-3 note: what to change and why it was judged valid.
• The PR number.

For pr_comment / review_body fix-list items (no file/line), the fixer identifies the relevant files from the comment text and the PR diff.

Fixer return format

• verdict: fixed, fixed-differently, or blocked
• feedback_id, feedback_type
• reply_text: markdown reply to post (quoting the relevant feedback) — omit for blocked
• files_changed: list of files modified (empty for blocked)
• reason: what was done, or the concrete contradiction for blocked

Handling blocked. A fixer returns blocked only when implementing surfaced a concrete contradiction its narrower view exposed (the change breaks a caller/test it can see, or the code isn't what the finding described). Re-evaluate it yourself with that evidence: either re-dispatch with a corrected instruction, or move it to the reply-list (not-addressing/declined) or human-list. Don't silently drop it.

Batching and conflict avoidance

Batching: If the fix-list has 1-4 items, dispatch all in parallel. For 5+, batch in groups of 4.

Conflict avoidance: No two fixers that touch the same file run in parallel. You already know the target files from step 3 — serialize fixers that share a file (dispatch one, wait, then the next); non-overlapping items run in parallel. For a class item, feed the fixer its full enumerated location set and every covered feedback ID (not a single thread), and account for all of its sites in this check — a class fix touching files another fixer also touches must be serialized against every one of them. When one fixer handles multiple threads on the same file, it addresses them sequentially.

Sequential fallback: Platforms that do not support parallel dispatch run fixers sequentially.

Fixes can occasionally expand beyond their referenced file (e.g., renaming a method updates callers elsewhere). This is rare but can cause parallel fixers to collide. Step 5 (combined validation) catches test breakage; step 8 (verify) catches unresolved threads. If either surfaces inconsistent changes, re-run the affected fixers sequentially.

5. Validate Combined State

Aggregate files_changed across every fixer summary. If it's empty, skip steps 5 and 6 and proceed to step 7.

Fixers run only targeted tests on their own changes. This step runs the project's full validation once against the combined diff to catch cross-agent interactions that targeted runs can't see.

1. Run the project's validation command (test suite, type check, or whatever the project's active conventions specify). Run once, not per-agent.

2. Green -> proceed to step 6.

3. Red, failures touch files fixers changed -> one inline diagnose-and-fix pass. Re-run validation. If still red, escalate with a needs-human item containing the test output; do not commit.

4. Red, failures touch only files no fixer changed -> treat as pre-existing. Proceed to step 6, but add a footer to the commit message: Note: pre-existing failure in <test> not addressed by this PR.

Record the validation outcome (command run, pass/fail counts, any pre-existing failures noted) for the step 9 summary.

6. Commit and Push

1. Stage only files reported by fixers and commit with a message referencing the PR:

git add [files from fixer summaries]
git commit -m "Address PR review feedback (#PR_NUMBER)

- [list changes from fixer summaries]"

2. Push to remote:

git push

7. Reply and Resolve

After the push succeeds, post replies and resolve where applicable. Post for every handled item: fix-list items use the fixer's reply_text; reply-list and human-list items use the reply text you composed in step 3. A class item carries multiple covered feedback IDs (feedback_ids/feedback_types from its fixer) — reply to and resolve every one, posting the shared reply_text on each thread, not just the first; a covered thread left unresolved re-actionizes in the next babysit loop. The mechanism depends on the feedback type.

Reply format

All replies quote the relevant part of the original feedback for continuity — the specific sentence or passage, not the entire comment if it's long. The per-verdict templates are in references/evaluation-rubric.md (skip verdicts) and references/agents/pr-comment-resolver.md (fixed / fixed-differently).

For needs-human verdicts, post the natural-sounding reply but do NOT resolve the thread. Leave it open for human input.

Review threads

0. Verify the thread ID before replying. GitHub Enterprise can return inconsistent node IDs for the same thread depending on the query path. Always confirm the ID from get-pr-comments resolves to the correct thread using scripts/get-thread-for-comment with the comment's numeric URL ID. Extract the numeric comment ID from the comment URL (e.g. discussion_r2589700 → 2589700) for the gh api call; if the bundled script is missing, use gh api to inspect the review thread instead:

SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md>";
GH_HOST=<derived-host> GH_REPO=OWNER/REPO gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/comments/COMMENT_ID --jq .node_id
GH_HOST=<derived-host> bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/get-thread-for-comment" PR_NUMBER COMMENT_NODE_ID OWNER/REPO

The returned id is the authoritative thread ID to use for reply and resolve. If it differs from what get-pr-comments returned, use the one from this script.

1. Reply using scripts/reply-to-pr-thread (if the bundled script is missing, post the reply with gh api or gh pr comment as appropriate):

SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md>";
echo "REPLY_TEXT" | GH_HOST=<derived-host> bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/reply-to-pr-thread" THREAD_ID

Check that the returned comment URL contains the correct OWNER/REPO and PR number before proceeding.

2. Resolve using scripts/resolve-pr-thread (if the bundled script is missing, resolve the thread with gh api if supported):

SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md>";
GH_HOST=<derived-host> bash "$SKILL_DIR/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 (pass -R OWNER/REPO — the parsed base repo — so a fork→upstream reply posts on the watched upstream PR, not the fork namespace):

GH_HOST=<derived-host> gh pr comment PR_NUMBER -R OWNER/REPO --body "REPLY_TEXT"

Include enough quoted context in the reply so the reader can follow which comment is being addressed without scrolling.

8. Verify

Re-fetch feedback to confirm resolution:

SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md>";
GH_HOST=<derived-host> bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/get-pr-comments" PR_NUMBER OWNER/REPO

The review_threads array should be empty (except needs-human items).

If new threads remain, check the iteration count for this run:

• First or second fix-verify cycle: Repeat from step 2 for the remaining threads.

• After the second fix-verify cycle (3rd pass would begin): Stop looping. Surface remaining issues to the user with context about the recurring pattern: "Multiple rounds of feedback on [area/theme] suggest a deeper issue. Here's what we've fixed so far and what keeps appearing." Use the same needs-human escalation pattern -- leave threads open and present the pattern for the user to decide.

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.

9. 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 — and the place where the gate's decisions become visible: the user can see exactly what was fixed, what was skipped, and why.

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 the evidence]
Declined (count): [what was declined and the harm cited]

Validation: [one line -- e.g., "bun test passed (893/893)" or "bun test passed with pre-existing failure in X noted"; omit when no code changes were committed]

If any item is needs-human, append a decisions section. These are rare but high-signal. Each carries a decision_context (composed in step 3, or by a fixer's escalation): what the reviewer said, what was investigated, why it needs a decision, concrete options with tradeoffs, and a lean if any.

Present the decision_context directly -- it's already structured for the user to decide quickly:

Needs your input (count):

1. [decision_context -- quoted feedback, investigation findings, why it
   needs a decision, options with tradeoffs, and the 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 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.

Use the platform's blocking question tool: AskUserQuestion in Claude Code (call ToolSearch with select:AskUserQuestion first if its schema isn't loaded), request_user_input in Codex, ask_question in Antigravity CLI (agy), ask_user in Pi (requires the pi-ask-user extension). 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.

Fall back to presenting the decisions in the summary output and waiting in conversation only when no blocking tool exists in the harness or the call errors (e.g., Codex edit modes) — not because a schema load is required. Never silently skip. If the user doesn't respond, the items remain open on the PR for later handling.