resolve-reviews

Automatically resolve all review comments (both human and bot) on the current PR. Uses a two-phase workflow: fix all existing issues, then poll for new ones until quiet.

Prerequisites

All commands below use npx agent-reviews. If the project uses a different package manager, substitute the appropriate runner (e.g., pnpm dlx agent-reviews for pnpm, yarn dlx agent-reviews for Yarn, bunx agent-reviews for Bun). Honor the user's package manager preference throughout.

Cloud environments only (e.g., Codespaces, remote agents): verify git author identity so CI checks can map commits to the user. Run git config --global --get user.email and if empty or a placeholder, set it manually. Skip this check in local environments.

Phase 1: FETCH & FIX (synchronous)

Step 1: Fetch All Comments (Expanded)

Run npx agent-reviews --unanswered --expanded

The CLI auto-detects the current branch, finds the associated PR, and authenticates via gh CLI or environment variables. If anything fails (no token, no PR, CLI not installed), it exits with a clear error message.

This shows all unanswered comments (both human and bot) with full detail: complete comment body (no truncation), diff hunk (code context), and all replies. Each comment shows its ID in brackets (e.g., [12345678]).

If zero comments are returned, print "No unanswered comments found" and skip to Phase 2.

Step 3: Process Each Unanswered Comment

For each comment from the expanded output, apply the appropriate evaluation based on whether the author is a bot or a human.

For Bot Comments

Read the referenced code and determine:

1. TRUE POSITIVE - A real bug that needs fixing
2. FALSE POSITIVE - Not actually a bug (intentional behavior, bot misunderstanding)
3. UNCERTAIN - Not sure; ask the user

Likely TRUE POSITIVE:

• Code obviously violates stated behavior
• Missing null checks on potentially undefined values
• Type mismatches or incorrect function signatures
• Logic errors in conditionals
• Missing error handling for documented failure cases

Likely FALSE POSITIVE:

• Bot doesn't understand the framework/library patterns
• Code is intentionally structured that way (with comments explaining why)
• Bot is flagging style preferences, not bugs
• The "bug" is actually a feature or intentional behavior
• Bot misread the code flow

For Human Comments

Read the referenced code and the reviewer's comment. Human reviewers are generally more accurate and context-aware than bots. Determine:

1. ACTIONABLE - The reviewer identified a real issue or requested a concrete change
2. DISCUSSION - The comment raises a valid point but the right approach is unclear
3. ALREADY ADDRESSED - The concern has already been fixed or is no longer relevant

Likely ACTIONABLE:

• Reviewer points out a bug or logic error
• Reviewer requests a specific code change
• Reviewer identifies missing edge cases or error handling

Likely DISCUSSION -- ask the user:

• Reviewer suggests an architectural change you're unsure about
• Comment involves a tradeoff (performance vs readability, etc.)
• The feedback is subjective without team consensus

When UNCERTAIN -- ask the user

For both bot and human comments:

• The fix would require architectural changes
• You're genuinely unsure if the behavior is intentional
• Multiple valid interpretations exist
• The fix could have unintended side effects

Act on Evaluation

If TRUE POSITIVE / ACTIONABLE: Fix the code. Track the comment ID and a brief description of the fix.

If FALSE POSITIVE: Do NOT change the code. Track the comment ID and the reason it's not a real bug.

If DISCUSSION: Ask the user to consult the PR author. Apply their decision and track it.

If ALREADY ADDRESSED: Track the comment ID and note why.

If UNCERTAIN: Ask the user. If they say skip, track it as skipped.

Do NOT reply to comments yet. Replies happen after the commit (Step 5).

Step 4: Commit and Push

After evaluating and fixing ALL unanswered comments:

1. Run your project's lint and type-check
2. Stage, commit, and push:

   git add -A
   git commit -m "fix: address PR review findings
   
   {List of changes made, grouped by reviewer/bot}"
   git push
   

3. Capture the commit hash from the output.

Step 5: Reply to All Comments

Now that the commit hash exists, reply to every processed comment. The --resolve flag marks the review thread as resolved on GitHub. Use it only when closing the conversation (false positives, discussions concluded, already-addressed, user-skipped), not for fresh fixes that reviewers should still verify.

For each TRUE POSITIVE / ACTIONABLE (we fixed it; leave the thread open so reviewers can verify):

Run npx agent-reviews --reply <comment_id> "Fixed in {hash}. {Brief description of the fix}"

For each FALSE POSITIVE (closing the conversation):

Run npx agent-reviews --reply <comment_id> "Won't fix: {reason}. {Explanation of why this is intentional or not applicable}" --resolve

For each DISCUSSION (after user decision) (the decision concludes the thread):

Run npx agent-reviews --reply <comment_id> "{Outcome}. {Explanation of the decision and any changes made}" --resolve

For each ALREADY ADDRESSED (nothing more to do):

Run npx agent-reviews --reply <comment_id> "Already addressed. {Explanation of when/how this was fixed}" --resolve

For each SKIPPED (user chose not to address it):

Run npx agent-reviews --reply <comment_id> "Skipped per user request" --resolve

Non-threadable comments: If a comment was posted as a PR-level issue comment or review-summary submission (not an inline review comment on a specific line), the CLI cannot post a threaded reply and will print ⊘ Skipped reply: comment is not part of a review thread. That's expected. Record the outcome in the summary and move on; do not retry.

DO NOT start Phase 2 until all replies are posted.

---

Phase 2: POLL FOR NEW COMMENTS (loop until quiet)

The watcher exits immediately when new comments are found (after a 5s grace period to catch batch posts). This means you run it in a loop: start watcher, process any comments it returns, restart watcher, repeat until the watcher times out with no new comments.

Step 6: Start Watcher Loop

Repeat the following until the watcher exits with no new comments:

6a. Launch the watcher in the background:

Run npx agent-reviews --watch as a background task.

6b. Wait for the background command to complete (default 10 minutes; override with --timeout).

6c. Check the output:

• If new comments were found (output contains EXITING WITH NEW COMMENTS):

  1. Use --detail <id> to read each new comment's full detail
  2. Process them exactly as in Phase 1, Steps 3-5 (evaluate, fix, commit, push, reply)
  3. Go back to Step 6a to restart the watcher

• If no new comments (output contains WATCH COMPLETE): Stop looping and move to the Summary Report.

---

Summary Report

After both phases complete, provide a summary:

## PR Review Resolution Summary

### Results
- Fixed: X issues
- Already addressed: X
- Won't fix (false positives): X
- Discussion resolved: X
- Skipped per user: X

### By Reviewer/Bot
#### cursor[bot]
- {description} - Fixed in {commit}
- {description} - Won't fix: {reason}

#### @reviewer-name
- {description} - Fixed in {commit}

### Status
All findings addressed. Watch completed.

Important Notes

Response Policy

• Every comment gets a response - No silent ignores
• For bots: responses help train them and prevent re-raised false positives
• For humans: replies keep reviewers informed and unblock approvals

User Interaction

• Ask the user when uncertain about a finding
• Don't guess on architectural or business logic questions
• It's better to ask than to make a wrong fix or wrong dismissal
• Human reviewers often have context you don't - defer to the author when unsure

Best Practices

• Verify findings before fixing - bots have false positives, humans rarely do
• Keep fixes minimal and focused - don't refactor unrelated code
• Ensure type-check and lint pass before committing
• Group related fixes into a single commit
• Copilot suggestion blocks often contain ready-to-use fixes
• If a human reviewer suggests a specific code change, prefer their version unless it introduces issues