triage-review

Triage Review Comments

Consume the review comments already on a PR — Copilot and human reviewers — and sort them into what's worth fixing and what isn't. This is judgment, not a fresh review: each comment is verified against the current code before a verdict.

Read-only. Never reply to threads, resolve conversations, or post anything. The output is a decision aid for the user.

Distinct from siblings: /code-review and /review generate new findings; this skill evaluates existing reviewer comments.

Workflow

1. Fetch with gh — pull the PR's review comments (default to the current branch's PR). Cover both inline thread comments and top-level review summaries, from Copilot and human reviewers. Keep only unresolved threads — resolution state lives in the GraphQL reviewThreads field (isResolved), not REST pulls/comments, so reach for gh api graphql when you need to filter out resolved/outdated noise. Capture author, path, line, and body for each. No unresolved comments → report that and stop.

2. Verify each against current code — read the file at path:line and confirm the comment still applies. Reviewers (especially bots) comment on stale diffs and miss surrounding context. An outdated: true thread defaults toward Skip unless the concern still holds in the current code. Completion: every comment has been checked against the actual code, not judged from its text alone.

3. Classify each comment using the rubric below. Every verdict carries a one-line rationale grounded in what you saw in step 2.

4. Output the triage table — grouped Address-first (see Output). Completion: every fetched comment appears in the table with a verdict and rationale.

5. Offer to fix — ask whether to implement the Address items. On yes, hand them to /tdd (test-first). Don't auto-implement; don't touch Skip/Optional/Discuss items.

Rubric

Verdict	When
Address	Verified against current code as a real bug, risk, correctness gap, or clearly valid improvement.
Skip	Wrong, false positive, outdated (code already changed), contradicts an established codebase convention, or outside this PR's scope. Rationale must cite the evidence, not just assert it.
Optional	Subjective/style/preference with no correctness impact — the user's call.
Discuss	Valid concern needing a decision you can't make alone (product tradeoff, breaking change, architectural direction).

• Verify before judging. A comment's confidence is not evidence — Copilot produces confident false positives. Ground every verdict in the current code.
• Prefer a specific rationale over a category label: "Skip — user is already null-checked at line 40" beats "Skip — not applicable".

Output

## Triage: PR #<n> — <title>  (<count> unresolved)

### Address (<n>)
- **`path:line`** · @author — <comment gist>
  → <rationale>

### Optional (<n>)
- ...

### Discuss (<n>)
- ...

### Skip (<n>)
- **`path:line`** · @author — <comment gist>
  → <why it doesn't apply, citing the code>

Error handling

• gh pr view fails → run gh auth status; if not on a PR branch, ask for the PR number.
• A commented file was deleted or renamed in the PR → note it and lean toward Skip (the concern likely moved).
• Copilot comment references a line outside the diff → treat as low-signal; verify the surrounding code before trusting it.