reply-to-pr-threads

Reply to PR Threads

Draft replies for a processed review-thread list, confirm with the user, post the surviving drafts, dismiss the code-scanning alerts their entries name, and resolve threads whose entry carries a resolution reason.

Step 1: Re-fetch Thread State

Auto-detect owner, repo, and PR number from the current branch if not provided, then query the current resolution state:

gh api graphql -f query='
query($owner: String!, $repo: String!, $pr: Int!) {
  repository(owner: $owner, name: $repo) {
    pullRequest(number: $pr) {
      reviewThreads(first: 100) {
        nodes { id isResolved }
      }
    }
  }
}' -f owner='{owner}' -f repo='{repo}' -F pr={pr_number}

Drop threads whose isResolved is now true. Reviewers or bots such as CodeRabbit may resolve threads after the original fetch, and drafting replies for them is wasted work.

Step 2: Run /github-voice Skill

Run the /github-voice skill to load voice rules and the insider-vs-outsider detection.

Step 3: Draft Replies

Use the processed-thread list from conversation context. Each entry has: thread id, file path, line, category (fix, skip, answer, clarify, or resolve-only), and per-category payload. An entry may also carry a resolution reason: ADDRESSED, WONT_FIX, or INVALID. A skip entry that carries a resolution reason may also carry a code-scanning alert number and a dismissal reason: false positive, won't fix, or used in tests. Its reply doubles as the alert's dismissal comment, so keep it within 280 characters.

Keep every reply to one or two sentences. No bullet-point reasoning. No bolded labels.

fix: payload is a commit SHA, optionally with a divergence note.

Fixed in <commit-sha>.

Only add a brief sentence after the SHA when the fix meaningfully diverges from what the reviewer suggested. Otherwise the SHA alone is enough.

skip: payload is the skip reasoning. State the reasoning directly. Do not apologize.

answer: payload is the raw answer text. Tighten to one or two sentences and apply /github-voice rules. Do not cite transcripts or mention Claude. The reply reads as the implementer's own explanation.