.agents/commands/git/pr-review.md
$ARGUMENTS
If REPO and PR_NUMBER are not provided above, use gh pr view to detect the current PR.
Spawn 6 reviewer agents in parallel:
After all agents report back, review their findings and keep only what you also deem noteworthy. Be constructive and helpful in your feedback.
Before spawning review agents, evaluate existing AI bot inline review comments to reduce the maintainer's cognitive load:
Fetch inline review comments:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments
Filter bot inline comments:
user.type === "Bot" and path field is not null (inline comments only)claude - do not respond to Claude's own commentsuser.login contains claude and in_reply_to_id matches the bot comment's idgemini-code-assist[bot], coderabbitai[bot], etc.Judge priority for each inline comment:
Reply to each bot inline comment with your judgment (in English):
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments/{comment_id}/replies -f body="\`Priority: {Required/Recommended/Not needed}\`\n\n{Brief explanation of your judgment}"
If clarification is needed, ask in the reply:
`Priority: Recommended`
This suggestion appears valid, but I need clarification: Is this pattern used elsewhere in the codebase?
Comment format examples:
`Priority: Required`
This is a valid security concern. The input should be sanitized to prevent injection attacks.
`Priority: Not needed`
This is a false positive. The suggested change would actually break the existing API contract.
`Priority: Recommended`
Good refactoring suggestion. However, this is out of scope for the current PR. Consider creating a separate issue.
gh pr view --comments to see the full conversationmcp__github_inline_comment__create_inline_comment to leave inline comments
gh pr comment with your Bash tool to leave your overall review as a comment on the PR