GitHub PR Comment Handler

Use this skill when the user wants to work through requested changes on a GitHub pull request. Use the GitHub MCP or gh CLI for PR metadata and patch context. Treat thread-aware review data as a gh api graphql problem — the flat comment surface does not preserve full review-thread state.

Run all gh commands with elevated network access. If CLI auth is required, confirm gh auth status first and ask the user to authenticate with gh auth login if it fails.

Workflow

1. Resolve the PR.
   • If the user provides a repository and PR number or URL, use that directly.
   • If the request is about the current branch PR, use local git context: gh pr view --json number,url.
2. Inspect review context with thread-aware reads.
   • Use gh api graphql whenever the task depends on unresolved review threads, inline review locations, or resolution state — it fetches reviewThreads, isResolved, isOutdated, and file/line anchors.
   • Use flat comment reads only for lightweight top-level PR comment summaries.
3. Cluster actionable review threads.
   • Group comments by file or behavior area.
   • Separate actionable change requests from informational comments, approvals, already-resolved threads, and duplicates.
4. Confirm scope before editing.
   • Present numbered actionable threads with a one-line summary of the required change.
   • If the user did not ask to fix everything, ask which threads to address.
   • If the user asks to fix everything, interpret that as all unresolved actionable threads and call out anything ambiguous.
5. Implement the selected fixes locally.
   • Keep each code change traceable back to the thread or feedback cluster it addresses.
   • If a comment calls for explanation rather than code, draft the response rather than forcing a code change.
6. Summarize the result.
   • List which threads were addressed, which were intentionally left open, and what tests or checks support the change.

Write Safety

• Do not reply on GitHub, resolve review threads, or submit a review unless the user explicitly asks for that write action.
• If review comments conflict with each other or would cause a behavioral regression, surface the tradeoff before making changes.
• If a comment is ambiguous, ask for clarification or draft a proposed response instead of guessing.
• Do not treat flat PR comments as a complete representation of review-thread state.
• If gh hits auth or rate-limit issues mid-run, ask the user to re-authenticate and retry.

Fallback

If neither the connector nor gh can resolve the PR cleanly, tell the user whether the blocker is missing repository scope, missing PR context, or CLI authentication, then ask for the missing repo/PR identifier or a refreshed gh login.

Quick Reference

# Check auth
gh auth status

# View PR
gh pr view <number> --json number,url,title,state

# List review threads (GraphQL)
gh api graphql -f query='
  query($owner:String!, $repo:String!, $pr:Int!) {
    repository(owner:$owner, name:$repo) {
      pullRequest(number:$pr) {
        reviewThreads(first:50) {
          nodes {
            id
            isResolved
            isOutdated
            comments(first:5) {
              nodes { body path line }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
' -f owner=OWNER -f repo=REPO -F pr=NUMBER

Verification

• Review state came from thread-aware GraphQL reads, not flat comments alone
• Actionable threads were clustered, numbered, and scope-confirmed before any edit
• Every change is traceable to the thread or feedback cluster it addresses
• No GitHub replies, thread resolutions, or review submissions happened without an explicit user request
• The summary lists addressed threads, intentionally open threads, and the tests or checks supporting the changes