Using the brainstorming skill, I'd like to streamline the way checkpoints version v1 and v1.1 are being mirrored:

• I'd like to be able to configure reads and writes such that it'll be easy to swap around what is the primary and what is the secondary ref. Right now the primary is v1 but down the road, I'd like to write directly to v1.1 and then mirror to v1.
• Eventually I'd like to easily be able to turn off mirroring and switch between the v1 and v1.1 implementations based on the checkpoints_version setting
• Right now, the places where we decide which ref to write to and read from are kinda scattered across the codebase and I'd like to unify and simplify this a much as possible
• I'd like to start pushing v1.1 to the configured git remote as well and would like everything to be set up to make this job as straightforward as possible

Can you do a thorough pass and look at the codebase with fresh eyes to figure out where we're mirroring between v1 and v1.1 and figure out what changes we can make today to simplify the rollout.

Base directory for this skill: /Users/pfleidi/.claude/skills/brainstorming

Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs

Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.

Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.

Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"

Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval.

Checklist

You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:

1. Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits
2. Offer visual companion (if topic will involve visual questions) — this is its own message, not combined with a clarifying question. See the Visual Companion section below.
3. Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
4. Propose 2-3 approaches — with trade-offs and your recommendation
5. Present design — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
6. Write design doc — save to docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md and commit
7. Spec self-review — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
8. User reviews written spec — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
9. Transition to implementation — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan

Process Flow

The terminal state is invoking writing-plans. Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans.

The Process

Understanding the idea:

• Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
• Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., "build a platform with chat, file storage, billing, and analytics"), flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first.
• If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.
• For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea
• Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
• Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
• Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria

Exploring approaches:

• Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
• Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
• Lead with your recommended option and explain why

Presenting the design:

• Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design
• Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
• Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
• Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
• Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense

Design for isolation and clarity:

• Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently
• For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on?
• Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work.
• Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. When a file grows large, that's often a signal that it's doing too much.

Working in existing codebases:

• Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.
• Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries, tangled responsibilities), include targeted improvements as part of the design - the way a good developer improves code they're working in.
• Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal.

After the Design

Documentation:

• Write the validated design (spec) to docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
  • (User preferences for spec location override this default)
• Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
• Commit the design document to git

Spec Self-Review: After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:

1. Placeholder scan: Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.
2. Internal consistency: Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?
3. Scope check: Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?
4. Ambiguity check: Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways? If so, pick one and make it explicit.

Fix any issues inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on.

User Review Gate: After the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:

"Spec written and committed to <path>. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we start writing out the implementation plan."

Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves.

Implementation:

• Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
• Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.

Key Principles

• One question at a time - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
• Multiple choice preferred - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
• YAGNI ruthlessly - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
• Explore alternatives - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
• Incremental validation - Present design, get approval before moving on
• Be flexible - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense

Visual Companion

A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser.

Offering the companion: When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once for consent:

"Some of what we're working on might be easier to explain if I can show it to you in a web browser. I can put together mockups, diagrams, comparisons, and other visuals as we go. This feature is still new and can be token-intensive. Want to try it? (Requires opening a local URL)"

This offer MUST be its own message. Do not combine it with clarifying questions, context summaries, or any other content. The message should contain ONLY the offer above and nothing else. Wait for the user's response before continuing. If they decline, proceed with text-only brainstorming.

Per-question decision: Even after the user accepts, decide FOR EACH QUESTION whether to use the browser or the terminal. The test: would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?

• Use the browser for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams, side-by-side visual designs
• Use the terminal for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, A/B/C/D text options, scope decisions

A question about a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. "What does personality mean in this context?" is a conceptual question — use the terminal. "Which wizard layout works better?" is a visual question — use the browser.

If they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding: skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md

I'm not sure what you were suggesting here. I didn't mention changing the shape of the setting at all. The mirroring is already in place and I would like to streamline the way it's implemented. Can you elaborate what you mean?

Let's do A

Could you investigate if removing Read and only using Primary and Mirror instead would simplify things? Can you identify the trade-offs of such a change?

Okay. keep read

The split is fair: attach and explain are user driven commands that aren't used all that often and we'd like to see if something goes wrong there since we can communicate an error state to the user directly compared to hooks that happen without user intervention.

Can you summarize this rollout plan into a few bullet points so I can share them with a coworker?

Can you copy the summary to my clipboard?

Can you copy the intended rollout plan onlywithout any implementation details? As in what the settings do now vs. in the next steps. Keep it short and just illustrate what I asked you.

Okay, continue. Please note that this implementation is dependent on another change I'm in the process of making so do whatever you can to capture everything you need to implement this task without actually implementing it since some changes to the codebase will have to ship before starting the implementation. Would a design spec and/or plan help to get going faster?

Nope, go ahead

This is the spec for the task that will be implemented before this one: /Users/pfleidi/entire/cli/.worktrees/feat/checkpoints-v1.1-rewind-clean/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-03-checkpoints-v1.1-topology-coverage-design.md

Read it and see if our current design needs to be updated

Yes

Specs are never committed if that's what you meant

Okay, you can base the current changes off of the remote branch feat/checkpoints-v1.1-rewind-clean. There's an open pull request which should be mergeable soon. Feel free to begin implementing the plan since I've just pulled in the base branch.

Base directory for this skill: /Users/pfleidi/.claude/skills/writing-plans

Writing Plans

Overview

Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.

Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.

Announce at start: "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."

Context: If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the superpowers:using-git-worktrees skill at execution time.

Save plans to: docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md

• (User preferences for plan location override this default)

Scope Check

If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.

File Structure

Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.

• Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
• You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
• Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
• In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.

This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.

Bite-Sized Task Granularity

Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):

• "Write the failing test" - step
• "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
• "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
• "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
• "Commit" - step

Plan Document Header

Every plan MUST start with this header:

Task Structure

No Placeholders

Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are plan failures — never write them:

• "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
• "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
• "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
• "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
• Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
• References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task

Remember

• Exact file paths always
• Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
• Exact commands with expected output
• DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits

Self-Review

After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.

1. Spec coverage: Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.

2. Placeholder scan: Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.

3. Type consistency: Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called clearLayers() in Task 3 but clearFullLayers() in Task 7 is a bug.

If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.

Execution Handoff

After saving the plan, offer execution choice:

"Plan complete and saved to docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md. Two execution options:

1. Subagent-Driven (recommended) - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration

2. Inline Execution - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints

Which approach?"

If Subagent-Driven chosen:

• REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
• Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review

If Inline Execution chosen:

• REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:executing-plans
• Batch execution with checkpoints for review

Please don't reference future plans in comments. Only describe the current state at a commit. Anything else will go stale very quickly.

Commit and continue

Commit and continue

Commit and continue

commit and continue

commit and continue

commit and continue

commit and continue

commit and continue

commit and continue

Base directory for this skill: /Users/pfleidi/.agents/skills/pfleidi/skills/review

Code Review

1. Determine Diff Against origin/main

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

Get the CURRENT diff — never use cached results from earlier in the conversation. Include both committed and uncommitted changes (staged + unstaged):

Note: git diff origin/main (not origin/main...HEAD) diffs origin/main against the working tree, capturing committed changes, staged changes, and unstaged changes in one pass.

Show the user the file list and total count. If there are 0 changed files, report that to the user and stop — there is nothing to review. Otherwise, immediately proceed to the review agents. Do NOT wait for confirmation.

Before launching agents, build a concise review context and pass it to every agent. Show the context as a table before launching agents so assumptions are visible:

• The user's request and any implementation plan, design notes, or acceptance criteria provided in the conversation.
• Branch commit messages from git log --oneline origin/main..HEAD.
• PR title/body when a PR exists for the branch.
• The changed-file list and any obvious intended behavior changes inferred from commits, tests, docs, or user-facing text.

Treat this context as the statement of intent. If no implementation plan or PR context exists, say that intent is inferred from the diff and commits only.

2. Spawn Parallel Review Agents

Review Philosophy

Pass these rules to every agent:

• It is OK to find nothing. A clean review is a valid outcome. Do NOT manufacture findings to justify the review. Only flag issues you are confident are real problems.
• Be opinionated and consistent. If a pattern is acceptable, don't flag it. If you flag something, commit to that position — don't suggest the opposite approach on a re-review.
• Don't flag trade-offs with no clear winner. If there are two reasonable approaches and neither is clearly better, don't flag it. The author already made a choice.
• High confidence only. Every finding must pass the bar: "I am confident this is a problem, and I can explain specifically what goes wrong if it's not fixed." Vague unease is not a finding.
• Permission-friendly reads. Avoid shell pipelines, command separators, subshells, and output filters for read-only investigation because they create extra permission prompts and block background review agents. Do not run commands like git show HEAD:path | sed -n '10,40p'. Use workspace file range reads, rg with path limits, path-scoped git diff $BASE -- <path>, or one standalone git show <rev>:<path> only when the output is acceptably small.
• Intent-aware review. Review changed code against the review context, not against the old behavior alone. Do not classify an intentional behavior change as Required merely because it differs from origin/main. A Required finding must either contradict stated intent, break an existing contract that the intent did not change, introduce a concrete bug/security issue, or leave the intended behavior unverified in a way that would likely fail.

Launch four baseline sub-agents in parallel using the Agent tool. Pass each agent origin/main as the base ref, the full list of changed files, the review context, and the review philosophy above.

When the repository is a Go project and the diff includes Go-related files (*.go, go.mod, or go.sum), also launch Agent 5 in the same batch. Do not run the Go-specific agent for non-Go diffs.

Agent 1: Security & Adversarial

Review git diff $BASE for:

• Injection — command injection, SQL injection, path traversal
• TOCTOU and race conditions — check-then-act patterns, concurrent access without synchronization
• Unvalidated input at system boundaries — user input, API parameters, external data
• Auth/authz gaps — missing permission checks, privilege escalation paths
• Secrets or credentials — hardcoded tokens, leaked keys, credentials in code or config

For EACH finding: read the actual source file and trace whether the code path is reachable in production. Discard any finding you cannot confirm with a concrete code reference.

Agent 2: Correctness & Quality

Review git diff $BASE for:

• Logic errors — off-by-one, wrong comparison, inverted conditions
• Nil/null handling — unchecked nil dereferences, missing error checks (especially unchecked errors in Go)
• Edge cases in concurrency — goroutine leaks, missing locks, channel misuse, deferred unlock ordering
• Redundant state — state that duplicates existing state, cached values that could be derived
• Production test seams — mutable function variables, package-wide settings, reset hooks, or exported knobs added only so tests can swap behavior instead of using dependency injection or a higher-scope test
• Parameter sprawl — adding new parameters instead of restructuring
• Leaky abstractions — exposing internal details, breaking existing abstraction boundaries
• Stringly-typed code — using raw strings where constants or typed values already exist in the codebase
• Test coverage and scope gaps — changed behavior, edge cases, or error paths not exercised by meaningful tests; tests that prove implementation details instead of behavior; or unit tests used where integration/e2e coverage is the right confidence boundary
• Test helper over-abstraction — helpers that hide the behavior, expected values, or assertions and make the test harder to understand than a small amount of duplication

For EACH finding: verify the claim by reading the source. Check call sites to confirm the issue is real, not hypothetical.

Agent 3: Simplification & Efficiency

Review git diff $BASE for:

• Dead code — unreachable branches, unused functions, struct fields that are never read
• Code reuse — search for existing utilities and helpers that could replace newly written code; flag duplicated functionality
• Copy-paste with variation — near-duplicate blocks that should be unified
• Unnecessary abstractions — wrapper types, indirection, or overly defensive fallbacks that mask errors
• Unnecessary work — redundant computations, repeated file reads, duplicate API calls, N+1 patterns
• Missed concurrency — independent operations run sequentially when they could be parallel
• Hot-path bloat — blocking work added to startup or per-request paths
• Unnecessary existence checks — pre-checking file/resource existence before operating (TOCTOU anti-pattern); operate directly and handle the error
• Unnecessary comments — comments explaining WHAT the code does (well-named identifiers already do that); keep only non-obvious WHY

For EACH suggestion: verify it does not break existing behavior by checking call sites and usages. Discard cosmetic-only suggestions (renames, formatting).

Agent 4: Readability & Go Idioms

Review git diff $BASE for code that is hard to read, maintain, or reason about:

• Poor factoring — functions doing multiple jobs, tangled control flow, or missing helper extraction where a small local helper would clarify behavior
• Mixed abstraction levels — high-level orchestration mixed with low-level IO, parsing, protocol, or data-structure details; low-level helpers that also make workflow or policy decisions
• Generated-code smell — repetitive pasted logic, shallow wrappers, generic names, or code that reads like it was assembled without domain intent
• Data-flow opacity — values transformed across too many steps, unclear ownership, hidden mutation, pass-through helper chains, or state threaded through unrelated code
• Control-flow complexity — deeply nested conditionals, boolean flag plumbing, early returns used inconsistently, or error paths that obscure the main path
• Naming clarity — names that hide domain meaning or force callers to inspect implementation to understand usage
• Go API readability — ambiguous (result, bool) returns outside clear comma-ok/presence checks, oversized interfaces, unnecessary pointer indirection, or cleverness where explicit Go would be clearer
• Error readability — errors that lose operation/context, wrap inconsistently, or make call sites branch on strings/booleans instead of clear errors or typed status

For EACH finding: explain the readability cost in concrete maintenance terms. Prefer small, local refactor suggestions. Discard formatting-only, gofmt-only, or personal taste comments.

Agent 5: Clean Go & Modern Go (Go diffs only)

Use the local pfleidi:clean-go skill as the source of truth: skills/pfleidi/clean-go/SKILL.md.

Review only changed Go code plus surrounding source, tests, interfaces, and call sites needed to verify findings. Apply the skill's Clean Go checks and version-gated Modern Go checks. This includes the modern-go guidance incorporated from JetBrains' use-modern-go skill: detect the relevant go.mod target version, only suggest features available for that version, and do not perform blanket modernization.

Focus on concrete changed-code findings around composable functions, abstraction level, function size/signatures, errors, pointers, small interfaces, any/interface{}, testing guidance from skills/pfleidi/testing/SKILL.md, and modern standard-library helpers. Discard findings that would merely restyle existing code or require a broad rewrite unrelated to the current diff.

Second-Pass Coverage Sweep

After the first-pass agents complete, run a second independent review pass before synthesis. The goal is recall: catch high-confidence findings that the lens-specific agents may have missed.

Launch one fresh coverage agent with origin/main as the base ref, the full list of changed files, the review context, and the review philosophy above. Do not pass the first-pass findings to this agent.

Ask the coverage agent to:

• Re-read the changed files and the surrounding code needed to understand each changed path.
• Trace changed behavior through callers, callees, tests, configuration, migrations, generated interfaces, and user/API entry points where relevant.
• Search the repository for related patterns, duplicated logic, and existing helpers that affect the changed code.
• Look across all lenses together: security, correctness, tests, simplification, readability, performance, and Go cleanliness when applicable.
• Prioritize missed Required findings over optional improvements.
• Return only high-confidence findings with concrete file:line evidence and a short explanation of the traced path.

Then compare the second-pass findings with the first-pass findings. Deduplicate overlaps, verify any new claim by reading source yourself, and discard anything that cannot be confirmed.

3. Synthesize Report

After all launched agents complete:

1. Collect findings from both the first-pass agents and the second-pass coverage sweep
2. Deduplicate — merge findings from different agents that point to the same underlying issue
3. Verify — for any finding where the agent did not cite a specific file:line with evidence, read the source and confirm or discard it
4. Group by file
5. Sort by severity within each file: Critical > High > Medium > Low

Severity Definitions

• Critical — Must fix before merge. Bugs, security vulnerabilities, data loss risk, race conditions with observable impact.
• High — Should fix before merge. Missing error handling, meaningful test gaps, performance issues on hot paths.
• Medium — Worth fixing. Code reuse opportunities, unnecessary complexity, readability problems that make future changes error-prone, minor efficiency improvements.
• Low — Optional. Minor readability improvements or cosmetic suggestions.

Relevance Classification

For each finding, classify as:

• Required — The change does not work correctly without this fix in light of the review context. Bugs, missing error handling that causes failures, security vulnerabilities, race conditions, contradictions of stated intent, or missing tests for intended behavior that would likely fail. The branch should not merge without addressing these.
• Improvement — Valid finding, but the change works correctly without it. Better factoring, clearer Go APIs, using existing helpers, code reuse, unnecessary complexity, style. Worth addressing in a follow-up, not in this branch.

Autofix Eligibility

Mark each Required finding as Autofix eligible or Needs decision:

• Autofix eligible — source-backed, high confidence, minimal 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 intentional behavior questions, 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. Put the smallest useful quote or evidence in the table rather than full paragraphs. Escape | characters inside code or text so the table remains valid Markdown. Use n/a for Autofix on Improvements. The Sources column lists the agents that independently found or confirmed the issue, such as security, correctness, readability, clean-go, or coverage.

If no findings exist at a severity level, omit that section.

If there are 0 findings across all agents, report that the review is clean and stop.

4. Present Report and Proceed With Default Fixes

Present findings in two sections:

Required

Table of findings classified as Required, sorted by severity. Include the Autofix value for each finding. Follow it with the details table for those same Required findings.

Improvements (follow-up)

Table of findings classified as Improvement, continuing the numbering. 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.

End with a one-paragraph summary: total required vs improvement findings, overall merge-readiness assessment, and any patterns across files.

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

Do not ask the user to choose a mode. Immediately proceed to Step 5 for Autofix eligible Required findings after showing the planned-autofix table. 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.

5. Fix Cycle

Scope Rules

• Make the MINIMAL change that addresses the finding
• Keep the diff limited to files and lines directly required by the finding
• First decide whether the finding is local or systemic. Fix at the narrowest correct level; do not add a local workaround that hides a shared/root-cause bug.
• If the finding requires a behavior-changing code fix, add or update the directly related test in the same fix step. 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 finding scope
• Do NOT refactor adjacent code, even if it looks related
• Do NOT create any git commits — code changes only

Default Batched Fixes

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

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

• Use ./tmp/pfleidi-review/ 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-review/ or modifying ignore files.

When an artifact directory is available, create a temporary fix ledger at <artifact-dir>/review-<repo-name>-<timestamp>.md before editing. If no artifact directory is available, keep the same ledger fields in the final summary table instead. Update the ledger after each finding with:

• Finding number, status, and source location.
• Files touched.
• What changed and why.
• Related tests or verification commands.
• Rollback notes sufficient for the user to understand how to revert the finding-specific change manually.

For each Autofix eligible finding:

• Read the relevant code to confirm the fix approach
• Re-check eligibility before editing; if the fix is no longer clearly eligible, mark it Needs decision and continue to the next finding
• Implement the fix — ONLY the code changes for that single finding
• Add or update the directly related test in the same diff when the fix changes behavior; if using TDD, complete red-to-green before moving on; if no test is added, state why
• Keep the diff limited to files and lines directly required by that finding
• If a fix would require changing a function signature in a shared interface, adding a dependency, expanding scope outside the finding, or making an ambiguous product/design choice, skip that finding as Needs decision and continue
• 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.

After all eligible fixes are applied, proceed directly to Step 6 (Verify Fixes). Do NOT show a diff yet.

6. Verify Fixes

Run the project's lint and test commands scoped to only the changed files and their directly related tests. 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 by the fixes 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-<repo-name>-<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.

On Failure: Auto-Fix

If lint or tests fail due to issues introduced by the review 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.

7. Present Results

Once verification passes (or the user has seen the remaining failures), present a summary table. Do NOT show a diff — the Edit tool already showed each change inline.

Also present a rollback/traceability table and the ledger path:

Ledger: <artifact-dir>/review-<repo-name>-<timestamp>.md, or n/a when no project-local artifact directory was available.

STOP and wait. The user decides what to commit.

8. Post-Fix

• If the user asks for changes, apply them
• If the user asks to revert specific fixes, revert ONLY those changes using surgical git checkout of the affected lines
• Do NOT commit. The user handles commits on their own terms.

commit the changes and fix the suggestions as a batch

Base directory for this skill: /Users/pfleidi/.agents/skills/pfleidi/skills/pr

Create Pull Request

1. Understand the Branch

Use origin/main as the comparison base for understanding branch scope. Do not use local main, a local PR target branch, or direct tree diffs such as git diff main or git diff origin/main for scope checks; those can include upstream-only changes and make this branch look like it reverted unrelated work.

Read the commit history to understand the full scope of changes on this branch.

Review the changed file list from the merge base to the current working tree and confirm every changed file belongs to the PR's stated goal:

If unrelated files or commits are present, STOP and report them. Do not create a PR that bundles unrelated work.

2. Discover Project Verification Commands

Inspect the project to determine how to build, lint, and test. Collect candidate commands from these sources, then deduplicate them before running anything:

1. Makefile — look for build, lint, check, test, ci, verify targets. Read the target recipes to understand what they run.
2. mise — check for .mise.toml or .mise/*.toml. Look for [tasks] definitions covering build, lint, test. If found, use mise run <task>.
3. CI workflows — read .github/workflows/*.yml (or .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) to understand required coverage. CI is the ground truth for what must pass, but CI matrix shards and CI-only wrappers are not automatically local verification commands.
4. README.md — look for "Development", "Contributing", "Building", or "Testing" sections that document how to run checks.
5. Package manager conventions — detect from project files:
   • go.mod → go build ./..., go vet ./..., go test ./...; do NOT infer a lint command from Go alone
   • package.json → check scripts for build, lint, test
   • Cargo.toml → cargo build, cargo clippy, cargo test
   • pyproject.toml / setup.py → check for configured linters, pytest

If no lint command exists after checking all sources, state that explicitly instead of assuming an unavailable linter binary.

Reuse Cached Verification Discovery

Before rediscovering commands from scratch, choose an artifact directory using the AGENTS.md temporary artifact rule with agent name pfleidi-pr:

• Use ./tmp/pfleidi-pr/ only when ./tmp/ already exists and is already ignored.
• If no project-local artifact directory is available, do not use a verification cache by default. Ask before using /tmp/pfleidi-pr/ or modifying ignore files.

When an artifact directory is available, check for a verification cache at <artifact-dir>/verification-<repo-name>.md. The cache is only an input-token optimization; never commit it and never trust it blindly. If no artifact directory is available, perform normal discovery and skip writing the cache.

Reuse the cache only when all of these are true:

• It names the same worktree root and remote.
• It lists the verification source files it was based on, such as Makefile, .mise.toml, .mise/*.toml, CI workflow files, README files, and package manifests.
• Those source files still exist or are still intentionally absent.
• git diff --name-only origin/main -- <source files> shows no branch changes to those source files.

If the cache is missing, stale, or incomplete, perform normal discovery. After discovery, update the cache with:

• Repository root and remote.
• Verification source files inspected.
• Selected command plan grouped by coverage area.
• Commands intentionally skipped as duplicates, aggregate/subtask overlaps, CI-only jobs, or too-slow shard matrices.
• Any assumptions, such as "no documented lint task found."

Deduplicate Verification Commands

Build a command plan by coverage area, not by source. Do not run every command discovered.

• Run at most one command for each coverage area: build/compile, lint/static analysis, unit/core tests, integration tests, e2e/smoke tests.
• Prefer documented local developer tasks over CI-specific commands when they cover the same area.
• Do not run both an aggregate task and its constituent tasks. For example, if mise run check runs lint and tests, either run mise run check alone or run the narrower lint/test tasks, not both.
• Treat CI matrix shards as duplicated slices of one suite. Do not run every *:shard:* command locally when an unsharded local task covers the suite.
• If CI has only sharded commands and no local equivalent, ask before running all shards. Otherwise, run the smallest representative or changed-scope test command and note that the full shard matrix remains for CI.
• Do not run CI-only canary/e2e jobs locally by default. Run them only when the PR changes that surface, when the user asks, or when the project documents them as required local PR verification.

Log which sources you used, which duplicate/CI-only commands you skipped, and what commands you will run. If the deduplication rules require asking before slow CI-only coverage, STOP for confirmation; otherwise immediately proceed to step 3.

3. Run Verification and Auto-Fix

Run the deduplicated command plan in the fewest safe batches. Prefer background processing for independent validation tasks instead of running everything sequentially.

The commands should cover, at minimum:

• Build — the project compiles without errors
• Lint / static analysis — no lint warnings or static analysis failures
• Tests — the selected local test coverage passes without duplicating CI shards or aggregate/subtask combinations

Use the exact commands, flags, and build tags found in step 2 for the commands you selected. Do not invent your own flags.

Parallel Verification Rules

Partition the selected commands into dependency-safe batches before running them:

• Run mutating commands alone and before validators that depend on their output. This includes formatters, generators, codegen, migrations, package installation, or commands known to update snapshots, lockfiles, generated files, caches in the repo, or test fixtures.
• Run dependent commands after their prerequisite batch passes. For example, do not start tests that require generated code until generation succeeds.
• Run independent read-only validation commands concurrently in the same background batch. Build, lint/static analysis, typecheck/vet, and unit tests can usually share a batch when they do not mutate the working tree and do not require the same exclusive service, port, database, or fixture directory.
• Keep integration, e2e, or service-backed commands separate unless the project documents that they are parallel-safe.
• If unsure whether two commands are independent, run them sequentially. Correctness of validation beats speed.

For each background batch:

1. Start every command from the same working-tree state.

2. 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 capture logs; that defeats command-prefix approvals and causes extra permission prompts.

3. Capture each command's stdout, stderr, exit status, and command line from the tool output separately.

4. While the batch is running, do not edit files, start auto-fixes, or treat partial output as a result.

5. Wait for every command in the batch to finish, then show verification as a compact table:

   Command	Exit	Relevant output
   go test ./pkg/foo -run TestBar -count=1	0	Short success excerpt.

6. 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.

7. If any command in the batch fails, treat the whole batch as failed for the fix loop. Results from other commands in that stale batch may help diagnose, but they do not count as passing verification after files change.

On Failure: Fix and Re-verify

If any command fails, do NOT stop. Instead:

1. Read the error output and identify every failure
2. Fix all issues — apply the minimal changes needed to make the failing command pass
3. Re-run the deduplicated verification plan from the top, using the same safe batching rules (not just the previously failing command — fixes can introduce new issues)
4. Show the updated verification table again, including complete failure output for any command that still fails

Repeat this cycle until all commands pass. Cap at 3 fix attempts. If verification still fails after 3 rounds, STOP and present the remaining failures to the user with full failure output — do not keep looping.

4. Prompt for Commit

After all verification passes, check for uncommitted changes:

If there are uncommitted changes (from auto-fixes in step 3):

1. Show the diff of all uncommitted changes
2. Propose a semantically correct commit message using the subject-plus-context style from AGENTS.md. The message must describe the net fix (e.g., "fix lint warnings in config parser" not "fix issues found during PR prep").
3. STOP and wait for user approval. The user may edit the message, split the changes, or commit themselves.

If the user approves the commit, do not rerun the full verification suite before committing unless files changed after step 3. If another sanity check is needed, use the commit-time verification scope from AGENTS.md: lint tasks, a fast compile/build check, and tests directly related to the changed code only.

If there are no uncommitted changes, proceed directly to step 5.

5. Push the Branch

If the branch has no upstream yet, use git push -u origin HEAD.

6. Create the PR

Determine a concise PR title (under 70 characters) from the commit history and diff.

Use the same branch-only comparison from step 1 ($MERGE_BASE to the current working tree) when deriving the title, PR body, changed-file list, and mostly-Markdown detection. Do not use local main or direct git diff origin/main output for PR description decisions.

Write the PR body with:

• What this PR does and why
• How it was implemented (brief, not exhaustive)
• Any migration, deployment, or reviewer notes if applicable
• For mostly Markdown PRs, a Rendered Markdown section linking to the changed Markdown files rendered on GitHub

Create the PR:

Create a ready-for-review PR only when the user explicitly asks for it with wording such as "non-draft", "ready for review", or "publish it as ready". In that case, omit --draft.

Show the PR URL and STOP.

Rules

• Do NOT add "Generated with Claude Code" or any AI attribution anywhere
• Do NOT summarize what you just did after showing the URL
• Treat a PR as "mostly Markdown" when more than half of changed files are Markdown (.md, .mdx, .markdown) or the main review target is Markdown documentation. In that case, include GitHub rendered links for the changed Markdown files using the pushed branch, e.g. https://github.com/<owner>/<repo>/blob/<branch>/<path>.md. Link all changed Markdown files when the list is short; for large docs PRs, link the main entry points or most important changed files.
• If the user provides a title or description, use it verbatim instead of generating one, but append rendered Markdown links for mostly Markdown PRs unless the user explicitly says not to modify the description.
• If the PR description contains checklist items (- [ ]), check them (- [x]) if and only if the corresponding step was actually verified during this workflow (e.g., build passed, tests passed, lint passed). Do NOT check items that were not verified. Do NOT leave items unchecked if they were verified.

The changes have just been comitted

Try now

Can you add a bit more details in regard to why this change was made and what problems it's trying to solve etc?

Can you improve the description a bit more given these parameters:

• The reaoning behind a change and why it exists is often very sparse
• Especially for bot reviews, some decisions being made during the implementation aren't clear so bots will often flag the same issues over and over again.
• The description should create tradeoffs and considerations. If it applies, we should also list options we considered and decided against.
• There's large sections with test plans that lists cli commands and newly added tests that's not helpful for a reviewer at all. We should skip that.

The feat/checkpoints-v1.1-rewind-clean has been merged already so the note about the commits beloging to it don't apply anymore.

Feel free to open the PR now. The other modified files will be committed in a different terminal soon

Can you pull in main and resolve the merge conflicts and then push again?

Base directory for this skill: /Users/pfleidi/.agents/skills/pfleidi/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

I confirm

One sec. Can we talk about these issues more thoroughly?

I'm wondering if comment #1 is actually valid: We're accepting the potential for the mirror to lag behind in a bunch of situations and that's intentional because we don't want to hide errors. Why is this one special?

Okay, fix all three comments, then

Can you re-read the CLAUDE.md file and take a look at my instructions about comments before making anymore changes?

do it

Make the cleanups and let me review the change as a whole before continuing

commit and continue

Commit and continue

xhigh effort → 5 angles × 8 candidates → 1-vote verify → sweep → ≤15 findings

You are reviewing for recall at extra-high effort: catch every real bug. At this level, catching real bugs matters more than avoiding false positives — a missed bug ships. Err on the side of surfacing.

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 — Find candidates (5 angles, up to 8 each)

Run 5 independent finder angles via the Agent tool. Each surfaces up to 8 candidate findings. Do NOT let one angle's conclusions suppress another's — if two angles flag the same line for different reasons, record both.

Angle A — line-by-line diff scan

Read every hunk in the diff, line by line. Then Read the enclosing function for each hunk — bugs in unchanged lines of a touched function are in scope (the PR re-exposes or fails to fix them). For every line ask: what input, state, timing, or platform makes this line wrong? Look for inverted/wrong conditions, off-by-one, null/undefined deref, missing await, falsy-zero checks, wrong-variable copy-paste, error swallowed in catch, unescaped regex metachars.

Angle B — removed-behavior auditor

For every line the diff DELETES or replaces, name the invariant or behavior it enforced, then search the new code for where that invariant is re-established. If you can't find it, that's a candidate: a removed guard, a dropped error path, a narrowed validation, a deleted test that was covering a real case.

Angle C — cross-file tracer

For each function the diff changes, find its callers (Grep for the symbol) and check whether the change breaks any call site: a new precondition, a changed return shape, a new exception, a timing/ordering dependency. Also check callees: does a parallel change in the same PR make a call unsafe?

Angle D — language-pitfall specialist

Scan for the classic pitfalls of the diff's language/framework — for example: JS falsy-zero, == coercion, closure-captured loop var; Python mutable default args, late-binding closures; Go nil-map write, range-var capture; SQL injection; timezone/DST drift; float equality. Flag any instance the diff introduces.

Angle E — wrapper/proxy correctness

When the PR adds or modifies a type that wraps another (cache, proxy, decorator, adapter): check that every method routes to the wrapped instance and not back through a registry/session/global — e.g. a caching provider holding a delegate field that resolves IDs via session.get(...) instead of delegate.get(...) will re-enter the cache or recurse. Also check that the wrapper forwards all the methods the callers actually use.

Phase 2 — Verify (1-vote, 3-state)

Dedup candidates that point at the same line/mechanism, keeping the one with the most concrete failure scenario. For each remaining candidate, run one verifier via the Agent tool: give it the diff, the relevant file(s), and the candidate, and have it return exactly one of:

• CONFIRMED — can name the inputs/state that trigger it and the wrong output or crash. Quote the line.
• PLAUSIBLE — mechanism is real, trigger is uncertain (timing, env, config). State what would confirm it.
• REFUTED — factually wrong (code doesn't say that) or guarded elsewhere. Quote the line that proves it.

Keep candidates where the vote is CONFIRMED or PLAUSIBLE.

This is recall mode — a single non-REFUTED vote carries the finding. Do NOT drop on uncertainty.

Phase 3 — Sweep for gaps

Run one more finder as a fresh reviewer who has the verified list. Re-read the diff and enclosing functions looking ONLY for defects not already listed. Do not re-derive or re-confirm anything already there — the job is gaps. Focus on what the first pass tends to miss: moved/extracted code that dropped a guard or anchor; second-tier footguns (dataclass default evaluated once, hash() non-determinism, lock-scope shrink, predicate methods with side effects); setup/teardown asymmetry in tests; config defaults flipped.

Surface up to 8 additional candidates, each naming a defect not already on the list. If nothing new, return an empty sweep — do not pad.

Output

Return findings as a JSON array of at most 15 objects:

Ranked most-severe first. If more than 15 survive, keep the 15 most severe. If nothing survives verification, return [].

/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).

Re-read my instructions about code comments, please

commit the changes

Base directory for this skill: /Users/pfleidi/.agents/skills/pfleidi/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

commit and continue