olliecrow/gh-address-comments

PR Comment Handler

Guide to find the open PR for the current branch and address its comments with gh CLI. Run all gh commands with elevated network access.

Prereq: ensure gh is authenticated (for example, run gh auth login once), then run gh auth status with escalated permissions (include workflow/repo scopes) so gh commands succeed. If sandboxing blocks gh auth status, rerun it with sandbox_permissions=require_escalated.

Multi-agent collaboration

• Default to using subagents when they are likely to improve speed, quality, confidence, or keep the main context clean.
• Use subagents to widen coverage, dig deeper on one thread, get a fresh second opinion, or keep the main thread clean while side work runs.
• Split work into clear packets with owners, inputs, acceptance checks, and a synthesis step when parallelizing.
• Keep the main agent focused on synthesis, unblockers, and the next critical-path step; let subagents handle bounded side work that can run in parallel.
• Use single-agent execution only when scope is small or coordination overhead outweighs gains.

Proactive autonomy and knowledge compounding

• Be proactive: immediately take the next highest-value in-scope action when it is clear.
• Default to autonomous execution: do not pause for confirmation between normal in-scope steps.
• Request user input only when absolutely necessary: ambiguous requirements, material risk tradeoffs, missing required data/access, or destructive/irreversible actions outside policy.
• If blocked by command/tool/env failures, attempt high-confidence fallbacks autonomously before escalating (for example rg -> find/grep, python -> python3, alternate repo-native scripts).
• When the workflow uses plan/, ensure required plan directories exist before reading/writing them (create when edits are allowed; otherwise use an in-memory fallback and call it out).
• Treat transient external failures (network/SSH/remote APIs/timeouts) as retryable by default: run bounded retries with backoff and capture failure evidence before concluding blocked.
• On repeated invocations for the same objective, resume from prior findings/artifacts and prioritize net-new progress over rerunning identical work unless verification requires reruns.
• Drive work to complete outcomes with verification, not partial handoffs.
• Treat iterative execution as the default for non-trivial work; run adaptive loop passes. Example loops (adapt as needed, not rigid): issue-resolution investigate -> plan -> fix -> verify -> battletest -> organise-docs -> git-commit -> re-review; cleanup scan -> prioritize -> clean -> verify -> re-scan; docs audit -> update -> verify -> re-audit.
• Keep looping until actual completion criteria are met: no actionable in-scope items remain, verification is green, and confidence is high.
• Run organise-docs frequently during execution to capture durable decisions and learnings, not only at the end.
• Create small checkpoint commits frequently with git-commit when changes are commit-eligible, checks are green, and repo policy permits commits.
• Never squash commits; always use merge commits when integrating branches.
• Prefer simplification over added complexity: aggressively remove bloat, redundancy, and over-engineering while preserving correctness.
• When you touch code, leave the touched area in a better state than you found it: clearer, simpler, tidier, and at least as performant unless the task requires an explicit trade-off.
• Before finishing any non-trivial task or pass, run at least one explicit consolidation pass across the touched code, docs, notes, tests, and configs.
• Use that pass to merge toward one clear source of truth, remove stale or duplicate material, and resolve contradictions before you declare the work complete.
• Do this by default as part of normal completion, even when the user did not explicitly ask for cleanup, consolidation, or contradiction resolution.
• Use simple, plain English in user messages, docs, notes, reports, code comments, and other explanatory writing. Avoid jargon, fancy wording, and complex phrasing. When a technical term is needed for correctness, explain it in simple words the first time. Default to short user-facing responses. Think about what the user most wants to know, and lead with that. Do not dump every detail by default. Always include important changes, blockers, verification gaps, and any important assumptions, nuances, principles, or decisions that shaped the work. Add more detail only when the user asks for it or when uncertainty or risk makes it necessary.
• Compound knowledge continuously: keep docs/ accurate and up to date, and promote durable learnings and decisions from work into docs.

Long-task checkpoint cadence

• For any non-trivial task (including long efforts), run recurring checkpoint cycles instead of waiting for a single end-of-task wrap-up.
• At each meaningful milestone with commit-eligible changes, and at least once per major phase, invoke git-commit to create a small logical checkpoint commit once relevant checks are green and repo policy permits commits.
• At the same cadence, invoke organise-docs whenever durable learnings/decisions appear, and prune stale plan/ scratch artifacts.
• If either checkpoint is blocked (for example failing checks or low-confidence documentation), resolve or record the blocker immediately and retry before expanding scope.

Terminal state contract (must follow)

The skill is complete only when all of the following are true:

• Objective completion: the user-requested outcome is achieved, or explicitly marked blocked with concrete blocker evidence.
• Workflow completion: every required workflow step is resolved as done, blocked, or not-applicable, with brief evidence or rationale.
• Step-level terminal completion: each numbered subtask must have explicit completion evidence (artifact, command output, or written rationale) before advancing.
• Verification completion: required checks/validations for this skill are executed, or any unavailable checks are explicitly called out with impact.
• Findings completion (where applicable): report only evidence-backed findings; if no high-confidence critical findings are present, explicitly state that.
• Loop completion: no actionable in-scope next step remains under the current objective.

Stop only after this terminal contract is satisfied; otherwise continue iterating.

Terminal state examples (adapt to skill)

• done: requested outcome is delivered and required checks are completed (for example expected artifact/report produced and required validation command(s) passed).
• blocked: progress cannot continue after bounded retries because of a concrete dependency or access issue; blocker evidence and exact unblock action are reported.
• not-applicable: an optional step is explicitly skipped with reason (for example no remote configured, so push step is marked not-applicable).

Preflight (must run first)

• Confirm repo context and branch state (git rev-parse --show-toplevel, git symbolic-ref -q --short HEAD).
• Confirm gh availability/auth (command -v gh, gh auth status).
• If detached HEAD or branch PR lookup fails, retry with explicit --repo <owner>/<repo> and current branch metadata before requesting a PR number/URL.
• Verify referenced paths exist before reading/writing helper outputs.

1) Inspect comments needing attention

• Run scripts/fetch_comments.py which will print out all the comments and review threads on the PR
• If branch-based PR discovery fails, retry with explicit --repo <owner>/<repo> and PR identifier.
• If the script fails due to gh JSON schema drift, rerun with a reduced field set and continue.

2) Triage comments autonomously

• Number all review threads/comments and classify each as: address now, already addressed, not worth addressing (with rationale), or blocked.
• Default to addressing all high-confidence in-scope comments without waiting for user selection.
• Ask a minimal user question only when a comment implies an ambiguous high-risk behavior change that cannot be resolved from code/tests/docs.

3) Apply fixes and verify

• Apply fixes for all address now comments in focused batches.
• Run relevant checks/tests after each batch, then re-fetch comments to confirm dispositions.
• Before re-fetching comments, run one consolidation pass over touched code, docs, tests, and PR text so duplicate fixes or contradictory guidance do not survive.
• Keep looping until no actionable in-scope comments remain or a true blocker is identified.

4) Refresh active PR metadata (always)

• Check whether the current branch has an active PR.
• Compare PR title/body against the branch intent and actual delta after addressed comments.
• If title/body are stale or incomplete, update them with sanitized metadata only (for example with gh pr edit --title ... --body-file ... using repo-relative paths or plain-language references rather than absolute local paths, file URLs, or raw terminal transcripts).
• If the active PR is draft and the branch is review-ready, promote it (for example with gh pr ready <pr-number-or-url>).
• If no active PR exists, state that explicitly and continue.

Notes:

• If gh hits auth/rate issues mid-run, prompt the user to re-authenticate with gh auth login, then retry.
• Treat Unknown JSON field as schema drift and reduce requested fields before failing.
• Treat Not Found (404) as repo/PR mismatch first; validate --repo and PR identity.