Review Comments

Pragmatically triage PR review comments: fix what matters, push back on what doesn't.

Phase 1: Fetch Comments

1. Get the PR number from context or user input
2. Fetch all review comments:

   gh pr view <number> --json reviews,comments
   gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<number>/comments
   gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<number>/reviews

3. Read the actual code being reviewed to understand context

Phase 2: Verdict Each Comment

For each comment, classify it into one of:

ADDRESS - The comment is correct and actionable

• Genuine bugs or logic errors
• Missing edge cases that could actually happen
• Security issues
• Correctness issues backed by evidence

DISMISS - The comment is over-engineered, stylistic, or wrong

• Adding abstractions for hypothetical future needs
• Suggesting error handling for impossible scenarios
• Style preferences with no functional impact
• Refactoring suggestions unrelated to the PR's purpose
• Incorrect assumptions about how the code works
• "What if..." scenarios that won't happen given the codebase constraints
• Suggesting tests for trivial code paths
• Adding comments/docs to self-evident code

ACKNOWLEDGE - Minor valid point, not worth changing

• Technically correct but the cost of change outweighs the benefit
• Valid style point but not a blocker
• Good idea for a follow-up, not this PR

Phase 3: Act on Each Comment

For ADDRESS comments

1. Make the code change
2. Reply explaining what was fixed

For DISMISS comments

Reply with a concise, respectful explanation of why you're not making the change. Be direct, not defensive. Examples:

• Over-engineering: "This is a single-use path - I'd rather keep it simple and extract if/when we need reuse."
• Impossible scenario: "This can't happen because [X guarantees Y]. Adding a guard here would suggest the invariant isn't trustworthy."
• Style preference: "Both approaches work - I'll keep the current style for consistency with the surrounding code."
• Wrong assumption: "Actually, [correct explanation]. The current code handles this because [reason]."

For ACKNOWLEDGE comments

Reply acknowledging the point briefly: "Good point - I'll keep this in mind for follow-up" or "Fair, though I think the current approach is fine for now given [reason]."

Phase 4: Respond

Use gh to reply to each comment:

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<number>/comments/<comment_id>/replies \
  -f body="<response>"

Decision Principles

1. Ship over perfection - The goal is a working, correct change, not a perfect one
2. YAGNI - Don't build for requirements that don't exist yet
3. Minimal diff - Every line changed is a line that could break; keep changes focused
4. Trust the codebase - Internal code doesn't need defensive programming against itself
5. Reviewer != oracle - Reviewers can be wrong, overly cautious, or applying rules from different contexts
6. Evidence over authority - "This could break" needs a scenario; "best practice says" needs a reason
7. Be respectful, be direct - Dismissing a comment isn't personal; explain your reasoning clearly