resolve-pr-comments

# Resolve PR Review Comments

Fetch unresolved review comments from a GitHub PR (inline threads, review-body observations, and issue-comment observations from the PR conversation), evaluate each one, fix or skip based on confidence, answer reviewer questions using recalled implementation reasoning, and reply. Inline threads are answered with thread replies; issue-comment findings are answered with new PR conversation comments. Review-body findings flow through the same evaluate-and-fix pipeline; their outcomes land in the summary because a review body has no destination to post to.

## Task Tracking

At the start, use `TaskCreate` to create a task for each step:

1. Fetch comments
2. Triage review bodies and issue comments
3. Run `/interpret-feedback` skill
4. Split questions and change requests
5. Run `/evaluate-findings` skill
6. Resolve ambiguities
7. Run `/resolve-findings` skill
8. Verify fixes
9. Run `/answer-reviewer-questions` skill
10. Run `/reply-to-pr-threads` skill
11. Run `/reply-to-pr-conversation` skill
12. Summary

## Step 1: Fetch Comments

Auto-detect owner, repo, and PR number from current branch if not provided. Then run `scripts/fetch-pr-data.sh`, which handles full pagination (reviews, review threads, inner comment pages for long threads, issue comments, commits) and emits a single merged JSON document:

```bash
bash <skill-dir>/scripts/fetch-pr-data.sh <owner> <repo> <pr_number>
```

Output shape:

```jsonc
{
  "meta":          { "title", "url", "headRefName", "baseRefName" },
  "reviewThreads": [ { "id", "isResolved", "isOutdated", "comments": { "nodes": [ { "author", "body", "path", "line", "originalLine", "diffHunk" } ] } } ],
  "reviews":       [ { "author", "body", "state", "submittedAt" } ],
  "issueComments": [ { "author", "body", "createdAt", "url" } ],
  "commits":       [ { "commit": { "oid", "abbreviatedOid", "message", "committedDate" } } ]
}
```

Filter review threads to unresolved only. Filter reviews to those with a non-empty body, excluding `PENDING` state (unsubmitted drafts). Filter issue comments to those with a non-empty body.

## Step 2: Triage Review Bodies and Issue Comments

Review bodies and PR conversation comments (issue comments) often pack multiple distinct concerns into one comment. Split each non-empty, non-PENDING review body and each non-empty issue comment into atomic observations, one per paragraph or bullet, so each can be evaluated on its own merits.

For every observation, check whether a subsequent commit already addresses it. Compare the source timestamp (`submittedAt` for review bodies, `createdAt` for issue comments) against each commit's `committedDate`; only commits after the source was posted can address it. Start with commit messages; read `git show <oid>` only when the message is ambiguous. A commit addresses an observation when its changes clearly resolve that specific concern. Touching the same area is not enough.

Classify each observation:
- **Addressed**: A subsequent commit resolves it. Record the commit SHA for the Step 12 summary.
- **Unaddressed**: No subsequent commit resolves it. Carry into Step 3, tagged with its `source` (`review-body` or `issue-comment`), the author, the observation text, and (for review bodies) the review state.

Review-body and issue-comment findings have no `diffHunk`, file path, or line reference. The downstream pipeline handles findings without a code location.

## Step 3: Run `/interpret-feedback` Skill

Run the `/interpret-feedback` skill on the union of:
- Unresolved inline threads
- Unaddressed review-body findings from Step 2
- Unaddressed issue-comment findings from Step 2

Skip AI-reviewer accounts — match by known login (e.g., `coderabbitai`, `copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot]`), not the `[bot]` suffix alone. Their structured feedback routes directly to `/evaluate-findings`.

For inline threads, include the `diffHunk` so the interpreters can see the code the reviewer was looking at. For outdated comments where `line` is null, use `originalLine`. For review-body and issue-comment findings, provide the observation text and the PR's changed-file list as context.

Tag each item with its `source` (`inline-thread`, `review-body`, or `issue-comment`) so later steps can route replies correctly.

## Step 4: Split Questions and Change Requests

Classify each interpreted item as either a **question** or a **change request** based on the reconciled intent from Step 3.

- **Question** — the reviewer is asking for an explanation or wondering whether something is intentional. No code change requested. Examples: "Why this approach?", "Is this intentional?", "What is the benefit here?".
- **Change request** — the reviewer suggests a code change, flags a bug, or proposes an alternative. This includes soft-phrased suggestions ("could we ...", "consider ...") and rhetorical questions that imply a change ("Shouldn't this ...?", "Is there a reason this isn't ...?").

When in doubt, treat the item as a change request. The verdict from `/evaluate-findings` in Step 5 will catch genuine non-issues.

Produce two lists. Each entry retains the `source` tag, identifier (thread id for inline threads; a generated id for review-body and issue-comment findings), file path and line (use `originalLine` when `line` is null; omit for review-body and issue-comment findings), the reviewer's original text, and the reconciled intent from Step 3. Questions skip Step 5 and feed Step 9. Change requests feed Step 5.

## Step 5: Run `/evaluate-findings` Skill

Run the `/evaluate-findings` skill on the change requests from Step 4 to triage each one. Questions are not evaluated here.

Review-body and issue-comment findings have no file or line reference. Scope their assessment to the PR's changed files as a whole, and do not treat the absent code location as a "code has diverged" early exit.

## Step 6: Resolve Ambiguities

Collect items assigned an Escalate verdict by `/evaluate-findings`. If there are none, skip to Step