From stepwise-git
Reviews all open PR comments, presents a justified summary with ACCEPT/REJECT decisions, and posts agreed responses individually.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/stepwise-git:review-pr-comments [PR number (optional — auto-detected from current branch)][PR number (optional — auto-detected from current branch)]opusThis skill is limited to the following tools:
The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Review all open PR comments, present a summary with your position on each, iterate with the user until agreed, then post responses individually to each comment.
Review all open PR comments, present a summary with your position on each, iterate with the user until agreed, then post responses individually to each comment.
PR target: if no PR number is given, auto-detect from the current branch. If none exists, ask.
Scope: only active comments (both inline and general). Ignore resolved and outdated ones.
Bias: defend the existing code. Only accept a change with a concrete technical reason (bug, violated principle, demonstrable readability gain). Reject style preferences without objective justification.
Context: before evaluating, read the full files affected plus related files (tests, types, direct dependencies).
Summary format: after reviewing every comment, present all decisions grouped by severity, one compact block per comment. Do NOT quote the full body verbatim — the user has GitHub open and can click through. Rephrase the claim in one sentence in your own words.
Extract severity from the comment's prefix when present ([SECURITY — CRITICAL], [CODE QUALITY — HIGH], [TESTS — LOW], [SUGGESTION], etc.). If no prefix, infer: correctness/security bugs → HIGH; performance, tests, or missing error paths → MEDIUM; style, docstrings, naming, "for symmetry", "for consistency" nits → LOW.
Block format per comment:
N. [ACCEPT|REJECT] {path}:{line or "general"} @{user} — {your one-sentence rephrase of the claim}
Reason: {1-2 lines, technical}
Fix: {concrete action you will take} # only if ACCEPT
Alternative: {what you propose instead} # only if REJECT
Link: {comment.html_url}
Present them in this order:
HIGH — decision required:
<blocks>
MEDIUM — decision required:
<blocks>
LOW / nits — proposed REJECT in batch (unless you rescue any):
<blocks, but with just the one-line rephrase + link; no Reason/Alternative>
Then ask ONE question: "Confirm my ACCEPT/REJECT on HIGH+MEDIUM and I discard the LOW batch — or do you want to rescue any LOW?"
Omit a section entirely if it has no comments. If ALL comments are LOW and every one would be REJECT, offer: "This round is all low-severity nits and rehashes of earlier positions. Close the round without replying?" — closing without a reply is a valid outcome when the original threads already carry your positions.
Exception: if a comment is genuinely short (<3 lines) and self-contained, quoting it verbatim is fine. The rule is "don't repeat information the user can read in one glance in GitHub".
Iteration: the user may push back on any decision. Update your positions and re-present the full summary until the user confirms agreement.
Publishing: once agreed, reply individually to each comment's thread (inline replies for inline comments, issue comment endpoint for general ones).
Language: responses posted to GitHub are always in English, regardless of the comment's language.
npx claudepluginhub nikeyes/stepwise-dev --plugin stepwise-gitCreates, edits, and verifies skills using a test-driven development approach with pressure scenarios and subagents.