after https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/1376, what is left for checkpoints v1.1 to mirror v1?

Ok, on a new branch branched off from feat/checkpoints-v1.1-streamline-mirroring as a base, let's make the next incremental change to support Push v1.1 to remote

/simplify → 4 cleanup agents in parallel → apply the fixes

You are improving the quality of the changed code, not hunting for bugs. Review it for reuse, simplification, efficiency, and altitude issues, then fix what you find. Do not look for correctness bugs — that is what /code-review is for.

Phase 0 — Gather the diff

Run git diff @{upstream}...HEAD (or git diff main...HEAD / git diff HEAD~1 if there's no upstream) to get the unified diff under review. If there are uncommitted changes, or the range diff is empty, also run git diff HEAD and include the working-tree changes in scope — the review often runs before the commit. If a PR number, branch name, or file path was passed as an argument, review that target instead. Treat this diff as the review scope.

Phase 1 — Review (4 cleanup agents in parallel)

Launch 4 independent review agents via the Agent tool, all in a single message so they run concurrently. Pass each agent the diff and one of the four angles below. Each returns its findings with file, line, a one-line summary, and the concrete cost (what is duplicated, wasted, or harder to maintain).

Reuse

Flag new code that re-implements something the codebase already has — Grep shared/utility modules and files adjacent to the change, and name the existing helper to call instead.

Simplification

Flag unnecessary complexity the diff adds: redundant or derivable state, copy-paste with slight variation, deep nesting, dead code left behind. Name the simpler form that does the same job.

Efficiency

Flag wasted work the diff introduces: redundant computation or repeated I/O, independent operations run sequentially, blocking work added to startup or hot paths. Name the cheaper alternative.

Altitude

Check that each change is implemented at the right depth, not as a fragile bandaid. Special cases layered on shared infrastructure are a sign the fix isn't deep enough — prefer generalizing the underlying mechanism over adding special cases.

Phase 2 — Apply the fixes

Wait for all four agents to complete, dedup findings that point at the same line or mechanism, and fix each remaining one directly. Skip any finding whose fix would change intended behavior, require changes well outside the reviewed diff, or that you judge to be a false positive — note the skip rather than arguing with it. Finish with a brief summary of what was fixed and what was skipped (or confirm the code was already clean).

Base directory for this skill: /Users/ninawork/.claude/skills/clean-go

Clean Go Review

Go has generics; do not repeat older guidance that treats lack of generics as a current limitation. Prefer typed APIs over exposing any/interface{} when they make call sites safer and clearer. Use generics for repeated type-independent algorithms or data structures, not as a replacement for method-based interfaces such as io.Reader.

1. Determine Diff Against origin/main

Always review the current working tree against origin/main directly. Do not use local main, git merge-base, a PR base branch, or a user-specified alternate base.

Include committed, staged, and unstaged changes. If no Go files changed, report that and stop.

Review only changed Go code plus the surrounding source, tests, interfaces, and call sites needed to confirm or reject a finding. Do not produce broad repo-wide style feedback.

Use permission-friendly reads while investigating. Avoid shell pipelines, command separators, subshells, and output filters for read-only source inspection because they create extra permission prompts and can block background work. Do not run commands like git show HEAD:path | sed -n '10,40p'. Use workspace file range reads, rg with path limits, path-scoped diffs, or one standalone git show <rev>:<path> only when the output is acceptably small.

2. Determine Target Go Version

Read the relevant go.mod for changed packages and use its go directive as the target version. If no Go version is available, do not suggest version-specific modernizations; ask before applying fixes that require a version assumption.

Only recommend modern Go features available in the target version. Do not use newer syntax or APIs just because they are listed here.

3. Review Philosophy

• It is OK to find nothing. Do not manufacture style findings.
• Findings must be concrete, source-backed, and limited to changed code.
• Prefer small, local refactor suggestions. Do not propose broad rewrites.
• Respect existing local conventions unless they directly create readability, correctness, or maintainability cost.
• Do not ask for public/shared signature changes unless the cost is justified. Stop before applying such a change.

4. Clean Go Checks

Review changed Go code for:

• Abstraction level - functions/methods should stay at one level of abstraction; high-level code should orchestrate meaningful helpers instead of embedding low-level IO, parsing, protocol, or data-structure details.
• Composable flow - avoid pass-through helper chains that only thread parameters into the next helper; prefer meaningful intermediate values where they clarify the flow.
• Function purpose and size - functions should do one cohesive job, avoid indentation-heavy logic, and use early returns when they make the main path easier to read. Treat about 20 lines as a review smell, not a hard limit. Do not split a function solely to hit a line count; helper extraction must create a meaningful, composable abstraction.
• Function naming - broader-scope functions can have broader names; smaller/lower-level helpers should have more specific names that stand alone at their call sites.
• Variable naming and scope - declare values close to use; keep mutable scope narrow; short names are fine only when the local context makes them obvious.
• Function signatures - prefer small signatures. Treat more than 3-4 inputs, unclear boolean arguments, and repeated primitive groups as review smells; consider an options struct when it improves call-site clarity.
• Return values - prefer concrete return types when practical. Avoid ambiguous (result, bool) returns except clear comma-ok/presence signals such as ok, found, or exists. Use named result parameters only when they clarify documentation or deferred mutation; avoid naked returns in non-trivial functions.
• Errors - do not discard errors; avoid panic for ordinary errors; use lowercase error strings without trailing punctuation. Avoid magic-string error checks; prefer defined/wrapped errors and errors.Is/errors.As where callers need to branch. Use %w only when exposing the wrapped error is part of the API; otherwise use %v or add context without wrapping.
• Contexts and goroutines - pass context.Context as the first parameter after the receiver, do not store it in structs, and do not define custom context interfaces. New goroutines should have clear cancellation, ownership, and exit behavior.
• Pointers and mutation - use pointers deliberately; minimize pointer-driven mutation, nil risk, and exposed mutable state. Do not pass pointers merely to avoid small copies, and do not copy values containing synchronization primitives or types whose methods imply pointer ownership.
• Test seams and mutable globals - do not introduce mutable function variables, package-wide settings, exported reset hooks, or other production state solely so tests can swap dependencies. Prefer dependency injection through existing construction paths or small typed interfaces; if that would distort the production design, use a higher-scope integration test.
• Interfaces - keep interfaces small; accept interfaces where useful and return concrete types where practical. Avoid embedded interfaces that create nil-panic or partial-implementation traps.
• any/interface{} - do not expose any/interface{} when a typed API or generic function/type would make misuse harder. Keep unavoidable dynamic typing behind a typed wrapper.
• Naming and packages - follow Go initialism casing such as ID and URL; prefer short, descriptive package names and avoid vague packages like util, common, or types unless the local codebase already uses them intentionally.
• Slices and JSON - distinguish nil and empty slices when API or JSON output depends on it; otherwise prefer the simpler representation used locally.
• Comments - comments should document public API or explain non-obvious why, not narrate obvious control flow. Public comments should start with the documented identifier when exported API docs matter.
• Tests and refactors - refactors that affect behavior or risk should include focused tests in the same diff. Check that tests exercise meaningful behavior at the right scope: unit tests for focused logic with natural dependencies, integration tests for real wiring/config/filesystems/databases/framework behavior, and end-to-end or smoke tests only for critical full-system flows.
• Test helper readability - use skills/pfleidi/testing/SKILL.md as the source of truth. Helpers should make tests more readable, not merely remove a few lines of duplication. In Go, prefer table-driven tests or subtests when repeated cases share logic; keep important inputs, expected values, and assertions visible at the call site; call t.Helper() in helpers that fail tests.

5. Modern Go Checks

Apply these checks only when supported by the target Go version:

• Prefer any over interface{} for unavoidable dynamic values in Go 1.18+.
• Prefer strings.Cut/bytes.Cut, strings.CutPrefix/CutSuffix, time.Since, and time.Until over manual split/index/time arithmetic when clearer.
• Prefer errors.Is, errors.As, and wrapped/defined errors over direct string or equality checks that break through wrapping.
• Prefer standard slices, maps, and cmp helpers over hand-rolled loops when they reduce code without hiding domain logic.
• Prefer typed atomics (atomic.Bool, atomic.Int64, atomic.Pointer[T]) over untyped atomic primitives.
• Prefer modern context helpers such as cancellation causes and context.AfterFunc when they make cancellation behavior explicit.
• In Go 1.22+, account for per-iteration loop variables and consider modern http.ServeMux method/path patterns where they replace local routing boilerplate cleanly.
• In Go 1.24+, prefer t.Context() in tests, b.Loop() in benchmarks, omitzero when it matches JSON zero-value intent, and SplitSeq/FieldsSeq when iterating split results.
• In Go 1.25+, prefer WaitGroup.Go for straightforward goroutine spawning tied to a wait group when the function must not panic and no custom goroutine wrapper is needed. Prefer net.JoinHostPort or equivalent structured host/port handling over manual host-port string construction when it avoids IPv6 or escaping bugs. Consider testing/synctest for concurrent tests that otherwise rely on timing sleeps or brittle synchronization.
• In Go 1.26+, prefer expression-based new(value) only when it replaces temporary-variable-address patterns for optional pointer fields; prefer ordinary values or composite literals when clearer. Prefer errors.AsType[T] where available.

Do not turn this into a blanket modernization pass. Only flag modern alternatives when they make changed code simpler, safer, or clearer.

6. Report Findings

Classify each finding as:

• Required - the change is likely incorrect, unsafe, brittle, or meaningfully harder to maintain without this fix.
• Improvement - valid clean-code feedback, but the change can still merge and the fix can be follow-up work.

Mark each Required finding as Autofix eligible or Needs decision:

• Autofix eligible - source-backed, high confidence, minimal Go fix is clear, no new dependencies, no shared/public interface change, no product/design choice, no broad refactor, and the directly related verification path is clear.
• Needs decision - any Required finding that fails one of the autofix checks, including API shape changes, cross-cutting refactors, or fixes where multiple reasonable approaches exist.

Present findings as compact tables, not prose blocks. Use one summary table for scanning and one details table for evidence and fixes.

Summary table format:

Details table format:

Keep table cells short and scannable. Escape | characters inside code or text so the table remains valid Markdown. Use n/a for Autofix on Improvements.

Present findings in two sections:

Required

Table of findings that should be addressed before merge. Include the Autofix value for each finding. Follow it with the details table for those same Required findings.

Improvements (follow-up)

Table of findings that are useful but not required for this branch. These are presented for awareness but are NOT included in the fix cycle by default. Follow it with the details table for those same Improvement findings.

If there are no findings, say the clean Go review is clean and stop.

End with a brief summary of the number of required and improvement findings and the main pattern, if any.

7. Proceed With Default Fixes

After reporting findings, do not ask the user to choose a mode. Immediately proceed to Step 8 for Autofix eligible Required findings. Do not fix Improvements by default.

If there are Required findings but none are Autofix eligible, stop after the report and list the exact decisions needed.

Before editing, present a planned-autofix table for Autofix eligible Required findings:

Do not commit.

8. Fix Cycle

Fix all Autofix eligible Required findings in report order by default. Do not ask which findings to fix.

For each Autofix eligible finding:

• Make the minimal change that addresses the finding.
• Keep the diff limited to files and lines directly required by the finding.
• Do not rename, reformat, reorganize, or refactor adjacent code unless required by the finding.
• Re-check eligibility before editing; if the fix is no longer clearly eligible, mark it Needs decision and continue to the next finding.
• If a fix would require adding dependencies, changing shared/public interfaces, expanding scope outside changed Go code and directly related tests, or making an ambiguous product/design choice, mark it Needs decision and continue.
• If a fix changes behavior, add or update the directly related test in the same diff. Prefer TDD, but complete the focused red-to-green cycle before stopping.
• If no test is added for a behavior-changing fix, state why.
• Track the exact files changed, what changed, and why the change addresses the finding.

If a skipped finding has partial edits, remove only your own partial edits for that finding before continuing. If you cannot safely isolate those partial edits, stop and explain the conflict.

9. Verify Fixes

After Go edits, run only focused verification. Use safe background batches for independent validators instead of running every command sequentially.

• Format edited Go files with gofmt. Run goimports too when imports changed and the tool is available.
• A fast relevant compile/build command if available.
• The project's lint task, scoped when supported. Prefer make lint, mise run lint, or documented lint tasks over invoking linter binaries directly.
• Tests directly related to changed code only.

Run gofmt, goimports, generators, or other mutating commands alone before validators that depend on their output. Run independent read-only validators concurrently when they do not require the same exclusive service, port, database, fixture directory, or generated output. Keep integration/e2e/service-backed commands separate unless the project documents that they are parallel-safe.

For each background batch, start every command from the same working-tree state, capture stdout/stderr/exit status from the tool, do not edit files while the batch is running, and wait for every command to finish. Run each selected validator directly, for example mise run lint, go test ..., or go vet .... Do not wrap validators in sh -c, shell redirection, tee, command separators, or pipelines solely to capture logs; that defeats command-prefix approvals and causes extra permission prompts. If files change after a failed batch, none of that batch's successful results count as current verification.

Show verification as a compact table:

For failures or short outputs, show complete output in the relevant-output column or immediately below the table. For long successful outputs, show the relevant excerpt and state that the rest was truncated.

Do not run full suites or aggregate check, ci, or verify tasks unless explicitly asked. If a command fails, report it and fix only issues introduced by the clean-go fixes.

10. Present Results

Summarize fixed/skipped findings in a compact table with columns for finding, status, what changed, and why. Stop after presenting results. The user decides what to commit.

Make a draft PR with the original pR we looked at as a base, but keep it in draft mode.

Make a draft PR with the original pR we looked at as a base

Address the comments on https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/1380

Base directory for this skill: /Users/ninawork/.claude/skills/pr-feedback

PR Feedback

1. Identify the PR

If the user provided a PR number or URL, use that. Otherwise, detect from the current branch:

If no PR exists for the current branch, stop and tell the user.

2. Fetch Review Comments

Fetch PR metadata first so comment decisions have intent context:

Also collect branch commits and changed files for context:

Show the PR context as a table before classifying comments:

Fetch unresolved review threads with GraphQL as the primary source of truth. Group work by thread, not by individual REST comment:

Filter to unresolved threads only. If there are no unresolved threads, report that to the user and stop — there is nothing to fix.

If GraphQL pagination indicates more review threads or thread comments are available, paginate before classifying. Do not classify a partial thread set as complete.

Use REST pull-review comments only as a fallback when GraphQL data is incomplete or a thread cannot be mapped to a review comment ID:

When REST fallback is used, deduplicate by GraphQL thread ID first, then by file/line/body/author. Do not present or fix the same review request twice.

3. Parse, Classify, and Group

Use permission-friendly reads while investigating comments. Avoid shell pipelines, command separators, subshells, and output filters for read-only source inspection because they create extra permission prompts and can block background work. Do not run commands like git show HEAD:path | sed -n '10,40p'. Use workspace file range reads, rg with path limits, path-scoped diffs, or one standalone git show <rev>:<path> only when the output is acceptably small.

For each comment, extract:

• Author — who left it
• Author type — bot, automated reviewer, human reviewer, or maintainer
• File and line — where it points
• Body — the actual feedback (verbatim, not paraphrased)
• Thread context — any replies in the same thread (to understand if it was already discussed or resolved conversationally)
• Thread ID and comment ID — the GraphQL review thread ID and original comment ID needed to reply and resolve

Group each unresolved review thread into a single finding. If multiple comments in one thread refine or supersede each other, use the latest unresolved reviewer request as the finding and retain the earlier messages as context.

Classify each finding source:

• Bot — GitHub bot, CI system, or linter/static-analysis account such as github-actions[bot] or codecov[bot]
• Automated reviewer — review-assistant accounts that produce natural-language suggestions, such as Copilot or CodeRabbit
• Human reviewer — non-bot reviewer
• Maintainer — repository owner/member/maintainer when that can be inferred from GitHub metadata

4. Present Findings

Present two separate sections:

Human Comments

Table ordered by:

1. Bugs / correctness issues — reviewer identified broken logic or missing error handling
2. Design / architecture feedback — structural changes, API shape, naming of public interfaces
3. Style / nits — formatting, naming of local variables, minor readability

Use this table format:

For automated reviewers, use the same table and set Reviewer to the tool account, with Priority based on the substance of the request.

Bot Comments (batched)

Table continuing the numbering from above, grouped by tool/bot:

Keep table cells short and scannable. Use the smallest useful verbatim quote, not the full comment body. Escape | characters inside code or text so the table remains valid Markdown.

End with a summary: total human comments, total bot comments, overall assessment of effort.

Do not stop for mode selection. Proceed by default with bot comments and human comments marked Autofix eligible. Mark a human comment Autofix eligible only when the requested change is source-backed, high confidence, minimal, unambiguous, does not require a product/design decision, does not add a dependency, does not change a shared/public interface, and has a clear verification path.

Leave all other human comments unresolved as Needs decision, with the exact decision needed. Do not reject a reviewer comment by default; rejection requires a user-provided public rationale.

Before applying any fixes, record the starting commit:

Choose an artifact directory using the AGENTS.md temporary artifact rule with agent name pfleidi-pr-feedback:

• Use ./tmp/pfleidi-pr-feedback/ only when ./tmp/ already exists and is already ignored.
• If no project-local artifact directory is available, do not create file artifacts by default; keep ledger/log/cache information in the response and mark file paths n/a. Ask before using /tmp/pfleidi-pr-feedback/ or modifying ignore files.

When an artifact directory is available, create a temporary thread ledger at <artifact-dir>/pr-feedback-<pr-number>.md. If no artifact directory is available, keep the same ledger fields in the final summary table instead. Update the ledger after each thread with:

• Thread ID, source category, reviewer, location, and status.
• Files touched.
• What changed and why.
• Related tests or verification commands.
• Planned public reply, if any.
• Resolve decision: yes/no and why.

5. Fix Bot Comments (batched)

Fix all bot comments first — these are mechanical and clearing them reduces noise before the human-comment phase.

1. For each bot finding:
   • Read the relevant code
   • Implement the fix — ONLY the changes needed for that single finding
   • Track the files changed for this finding so the final PR reply can identify the commit that contains the fix
   • If a fix is ambiguous or would conflict with a human-comment fix already applied, mark it Needs decision and continue
2. After all bot fixes are applied, present a summary table. Do NOT show a diff — the Edit tool already showed each change inline.

1. Proceed directly to Step 6.

6. Fix Human Comments (batched)

After bot fixes, work through Autofix eligible human comments in report order:

1. State which finding you are addressing (number and one-line description)
2. Read the relevant code and the full comment thread to understand intent
3. Re-check eligibility before editing; if the fix is no longer clearly eligible, mark it Needs decision and continue
4. Implement the fix — ONLY the changes needed for that single finding
5. Track the files changed for this finding so the final PR reply can identify the commit that contains the fix
6. If a comment needs a product/design decision, shared/public interface change, dependency, broad refactor, or has multiple reasonable fixes, mark it Needs decision and continue
7. If the user rejects the comment instead of fixing it, record the specific rationale to use in the final PR reply

Scope Rules

• Make the MINIMAL change that addresses the reviewer's feedback
• Keep the diff limited to files and lines directly required by the feedback
• First decide whether the feedback points to a local or systemic issue. Fix at the narrowest correct level; do not add a local workaround that hides a shared/root-cause bug.
• If the feedback requires a behavior-changing code fix, add or update the directly related test in the same fix. Prefer TDD, but complete the focused red-to-green cycle before stopping: write/update the failing test, confirm it fails, implement the fix, confirm the focused test passes. Do not stop after only adding the failing test unless the user explicitly asks.
• Do NOT rename variables, reformat code, or touch lines outside the feedback scope
• Do NOT refactor adjacent code, even if it looks related
• If the reviewer's comment is ambiguous, mark it Needs decision and continue with unrelated unambiguous comments
• Do NOT create any git commits during the fix cycle. Commits are handled only in the publish step, and only with explicit user approval when needed.

7. Verify Fixes

After all fixes are applied, run the project's lint and test commands scoped to only the changed files and their directly related tests. If no code changed, skip verification and proceed to Step 8. Use safe background batches for independent validators instead of running every command sequentially.

When selecting verification commands, reuse <artifact-dir>/verification-<repo-name>.md if an artifact directory is available and the cache is fresh under the cache rules from pfleidi:pr; otherwise discover the smallest relevant lint/test/build commands. Update the cache only when an artifact directory is available.

• Lint / static analysis — run the project's documented lint task, scoped to the files that were modified when the task supports scoping. Prefer lint-specific task wrappers such as make lint or mise run lint over invoking linter binaries directly. Do not use aggregate check, ci, or verify tasks unless you have confirmed they only run lint/static analysis. If the documented lint task cannot be scoped, run the smallest relevant project lint task.
• Tests — run only the test files that cover the modified code (same package, same module, co-located test files). Do NOT run the full test suite.

If no project lint task exists, state that explicitly instead of assuming an unavailable linter binary.

Run formatters, generators, snapshot updates, or other mutating commands alone before validators that depend on their output. Run independent read-only validators concurrently when they do not require the same exclusive service, port, database, fixture directory, or generated output. Keep integration/e2e/service-backed commands separate unless the project documents that they are parallel-safe.

For each background batch, start every command from the same working-tree state, capture stdout/stderr/exit status from the tool, do not edit files while the batch is running, and wait for every command to finish. Run each selected validator directly, for example mise run lint, go test ..., or npm test -- .... Do not wrap validators in sh -c, shell redirection, tee, command separators, or pipelines solely to write logs; that defeats command-prefix approvals and causes extra permission prompts. If an artifact directory is available and file logs can be written after the command completes without rerunning through a shell wrapper, save them under <artifact-dir>/logs-<pr-number>-<timestamp>/; otherwise mark the full-log path as n/a. If files change after a failed batch, none of that batch's successful results count as current verification.

Show verification as a compact table:

For failures or short outputs, show complete output in the relevant-output column or immediately below the table. For long successful outputs, show the relevant excerpt and log path.

If lint or tests fail due to issues introduced by the fixes:

1. Read the error output and identify every failure
2. Fix all issues — apply the minimal changes needed
3. Re-run the failing commands using the same safe batching rules
4. Show the complete output again

Cap at 2 fix attempts. If still failing after 2 rounds, present the remaining failures to the user with full output.

Once verification passes, show a summary: how many comments were addressed, rejected, intentionally left unresolved, or still blocked. Do NOT show a diff — the Edit tool already showed each change inline.

Proceed to Step 8 for threads that were addressed or intentionally rejected. Leave Needs decision threads unresolved and do not reply to them unless the user provided a public rejection rationale. Do not block publishing addressed threads just because unrelated threads still need a decision.

8. Publish PR Updates

After addressed/rejected threads are ready to publish:

1. Check branch state:

2. If there are uncommitted fix changes, STOP and ask the user whether to commit them now or let the user commit manually. Do not push until the fixes are committed. If the user approves committing, stage only files changed for the PR feedback fixes and write the commit message from the actual diff using the subject-plus-context style from AGENTS.md.

3. Push the committed changes for the current branch:

   If the branch has no upstream and the push fails for that reason, use:

   Never force-push.

4. Map each addressed finding to the commit or commits that contain its fix. Use the recorded starting commit, changed-file tracking, ledger, and git log / git show to identify the relevant short SHA(s). If one commit fixes multiple comments, reference the same commit in each reply.

5. Build and show a reply plan table before calling the API:

   Thread	Status	Reply body	Resolve
   PRRT_...	Addressed	Addressed in abc1234 by adding the nil check before dereferencing.	Yes
   PRRT_...	Needs decision	n/a	No

   Proceed without asking when every actionable reply row is either addressed or a user-approved rejection. Needs decision rows with Reply = n/a and Resolve = No do not block publishing addressed threads. Stop before API calls if a rejection lacks a public rationale or if any reply body is uncertain.

6. Reply to each original PR review thread:

   • For addressed comments, state what changed and the commit SHA(s), e.g. Addressed in abc1234 by adding the nil check before dereferencing.

   • For rejected comments, state why it was not changed, e.g. Not changed: this path already returns before allocation failure can be observed.

   • Keep replies concise but specific. Do not over-explain or repeat the diff.

   • Do not reply to comments the user explicitly chose to leave unresolved.

   • Prefer replying with the review thread ID:

     If the thread cannot be replied to by GraphQL, use the original review comment ID with the REST reply endpoint.

7. Resolve each thread after replying:

   Do not resolve a thread that was not replied to, is still ambiguous, or still needs user approval.

8. Present a final summary table:

   Thread	Reviewer	Location	Status	Reply	Resolved
   PRRT_...	reviewer	file.go:42	Addressed	Yes	Yes
   PRRT_...	reviewer	file.go:99	Needs decision	No	No

   Include push result, branch, ledger path, rejected comments and rationale, and any comments intentionally left unresolved or not resolvable via API.

9. Post-Publish

• If the user asks for adjustments, apply them
• If the user asks to revert specific fixes, revert ONLY those changes
• Do NOT commit or push additional changes unless explicitly asked

ARGUMENTS: https://github.com/entireio/cli/pull/1380

Minimize the comments on the PR

Minimize the code comments in the diff