optave
diff --git a/‎.claude/skills/review/SKILL.md‎
Lines changed: 188 additions & 0 deletions b/‎.claude/skills/review/SKILL.md‎
Lines changed: 188 additions & 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+---
+name: review
+description: Check all open PRs, resolve conflicts, update branches, address Claude and Greptile review concerns, fix CI failures, and retrigger reviewers until clean
+allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Agent
+---
+
+# PR Review Sweep
+
+You are performing a full review sweep across all open PRs in this repository. Your goal is to bring every PR to a clean, mergeable state: no conflicts, CI passing, all reviewer comments addressed, and reviewers re-triggered until satisfied.
+
+---
+
+## Step 0: Worktree Isolation
+
+Before doing anything else, run `/worktree` to get an isolated copy of the repo. CLAUDE.md mandates that every session starts with `/worktree` to prevent cross-session interference. All subsequent steps run inside the worktree.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1: Discover Open PRs
+
+```bash
+gh pr list --repo optave/codegraph --state open --json number,title,headRefName,baseRefName,mergeable,statusCheckRollup,reviewDecision --limit 50
+```
+
+Record each PR's number, branch, base, merge status, and CI state.
+
+---
+
+## Step 2: Process Each PR
+
+For **each** open PR, perform the following steps in order. Process PRs one at a time to avoid cross-contamination.
+
+### 2a. Switch to the PR branch
+
+Ensure the working tree is clean before switching to avoid cross-PR contamination:
+
+```bash
+if [ -n "$(git status --porcelain)" ]; then
+  git stash push -m "pre-checkout stash"
+fi
+```
+
+Then check out the PR branch:
+
+```bash
+gh pr checkout <number>
+```
+
+### 2b. Resolve merge conflicts
+
+Check if the PR has conflicts with its base branch:
+
+```bash
+gh pr view <number> --json mergeable --jq '.mergeable'
+```
+
+If `CONFLICTING`:
+
+1. Merge the base branch into the head branch (never rebase):
+   ```bash
+   git merge origin/<base-branch>
+   ```
+2. Resolve all conflicts by reading the conflicting files, understanding both sides, and making the correct resolution.
+3. After resolving, stage the resolved files by name (not `git add .`), commit with: `fix: resolve merge conflicts with <base-branch>`
+4. Push the updated branch.
+
+### 2c. Check CI status
+
+```bash
+gh pr checks <number>
+```
+
+If any checks are failing:
+
+1. Read the failing check logs:
+   ```bash
+   gh run view <run-id> --log-failed
+   ```
+2. Diagnose the failure — read the relevant source files, understand the error.
+3. Fix the issue in code.
+4. Run tests locally to verify: `npm test`
+5. Run lint locally: `npm run lint`
+6. Commit the fix with a descriptive message: `fix: <what was broken and why>`
+7. Push and wait for CI to re-run. Check again:
+   ```bash
+   gh pr checks <number>
+   ```
+8. Repeat until CI is green.
+
+### 2d. Gather all review comments
+
+Fetch **all** review comments from both Claude and Greptile:
+
+```bash
+# PR review comments (inline code comments)
+gh api repos/optave/codegraph/pulls/<number>/comments --paginate --jq '.[] | {id: .id, user: .user.login, body: .body, path: .path, line: .line, created_at: .created_at}'
+
+# PR reviews (top-level review bodies)
+gh api repos/optave/codegraph/pulls/<number>/reviews --paginate --jq '.[] | {id: .id, user: .user.login, body: .body, state: .state}'
+
+# Issue-style comments (includes @greptileai trigger responses)
+gh api repos/optave/codegraph/issues/<number>/comments --paginate --jq '.[] | {id: .id, user: .user.login, body: .body, created_at: .created_at}'
+```
+
+### 2e. Address every comment
+
+For **each** review comment — including minor suggestions, nits, style feedback, and optional improvements:
+
+1. **Read the comment carefully.** Understand what the reviewer is asking for.
+2. **Read the relevant code** at the file and line referenced.
+3. **Make the change.** Even if the comment is marked as "nit" or "suggestion" or "minor" — address it. The goal is zero outstanding comments.
+4. **If you disagree** with a suggestion (e.g., it would introduce a bug or contradicts project conventions), do NOT silently ignore it. Reply to the comment explaining why you chose a different approach.
+5. **Reply to each comment** explaining what you did:
+   ```bash
+   gh api repos/optave/codegraph/pulls/<number>/comments/<comment-id>/replies \
+     -f body="Fixed — <brief description of what was changed>"
+   ```
+   For issue-style comments, reply on the issue:
+   ```bash
+   gh api repos/optave/codegraph/issues/<number>/comments \
+     -f body="Addressed: <summary of changes made>"
+   ```
+
+### 2f. Commit and push fixes
+
+After addressing all comments for a PR:
+
+1. Stage only the files you changed.
+2. Group changes by concern — each logically distinct fix gets its own commit (e.g., one commit for a missing validation, another for a naming change). Do not lump all feedback into a single commit.
+3. Use descriptive messages per commit: `fix: <what this specific change does> (#<number>)`
+4. Push to the PR branch.
+
+### 2g. Re-trigger reviewers
+
+**Greptile:** Always re-trigger after pushing fixes. Post a comment:
+
+```bash
+gh api repos/optave/codegraph/issues/<number>/comments \
+  -f body="@greptileai"
+```
+
+**Claude (claude-code-review / claude bot):** Only re-trigger if you addressed something Claude specifically suggested. If you did:
+
+```bash
+gh api repos/optave/codegraph/issues/<number>/comments \
+  -f body="@claude"
+```
+
+If all changes were only in response to Greptile feedback, do NOT re-trigger Claude.
+
+### 2h. Wait and re-check
+
+After re-triggering:
+
+1. Wait for the new reviews to come in (check after a reasonable interval).
+2. Fetch new comments again (repeat Step 2d).
+3. If there are **new** comments from Greptile or Claude, go back to Step 2e and address them.
+4. **Repeat this loop for a maximum of 3 rounds.** If after 3 rounds there are still actionable comments, mark the PR as "needs human review" in the summary table and move to the next PR.
+5. Verify CI is still green after all changes.
+
+---
+
+## Step 3: Summary
+
+After processing all PRs, output a summary table:
+
+```
+| PR | Branch | Conflicts | CI | Comments Addressed | Reviewers Re-triggered | Status |
+|----|--------|-----------|----|--------------------|----------------------|--------|
+| #N | branch | resolved/none | green/red | N comments | greptile, claude | ready/needs-work |
+```
+
+---
+
+## Rules
+
+- **Never rebase.** Always `git merge <base>` to resolve conflicts.
+- **Never force-push** unless fixing a commit message that fails commitlint. Amend + force-push is the only way to fix a pushed commit title (messages are part of the SHA). This is safe on feature branches. For all other problems, fix with a new commit.
+- **Address ALL comments**, even minor/nit/optional ones. Leave zero unaddressed.
+- **Always reply to comments** explaining what was done. Don't just fix silently.
+- **Always re-trigger Greptile** after pushing fixes — it must confirm satisfaction.
+- **Only re-trigger Claude** if you addressed Claude's feedback specifically.
+- **No co-author lines** in commit messages.
+- **No Claude Code references** in commit messages or comments.
+- **Run tests and lint locally** before pushing any fix.
+- **One concern per commit** — don't lump conflict resolution with code fixes.
+- **Flag scope creep.** If a PR's diff contains files unrelated to its stated purpose (e.g., a docs PR carrying `src/` or test changes from a merged feature branch), flag it immediately. Split the unrelated changes into a separate branch and PR. Do not proceed with review until the PR is scoped correctly — scope creep is not acceptable.
+- If a PR is fundamentally broken beyond what review feedback can fix, note it in the summary and skip to the next PR.