Skill v1.0.1

version: "1.0.1" name: deal-review allowed-tools: Bash(git diff:), Bash(git log:), Bash(git branch:), Bash(git rev-parse:), Bash(gh pr:), Bash(gh api:), Bash(gh repo:), Bash(jq:), Read, Edit, Glob, Grep argument-hint: "[context]" description: Address review findings from /code-review, /style-review, /doc-review, or /pr-review

Arguments

• context (optional): User guidance on which findings to address and how (e.g., "1, 2 は対応、3 は不要", "全部対応", "3 は指摘が間違い").

Context

!git branch --show-current !gh repo view --json nameWithOwner --jq '.nameWithOwner' 2>/dev/null || echo 'NO_REPO' !gh pr view --json number --jq '.number' 2>/dev/null || echo 'NO_PR'

Language

• Task prompts to agents: English
• User-facing output: Japanese

Principles

• This command runs after /code-review, /style-review, /doc-review, or /pr-review. The review results are in the conversation history.
• User's context argument takes highest priority over the review's own severity judgments.
• If no context is provided, follow the review's recommendations (address ★★★ and ★★☆; skip ★☆☆ and ☆☆☆ unless they are trivially fixable).
• Do NOT commit or push. Only implement changes (code or document), reply to threads, and resolve threads.

Workflow

Step 1: Identify review type

Look at the conversation history to determine which review command was run:

• Code review (/code-review): The report starts with ## コードレビュー結果
• Style review (/style-review): The report starts with ## スタイルレビュー結果
• Doc review (/doc-review): The report starts with ## ドキュメントレビュー結果
• PR review (/pr-review): The report starts with ## 未解決のレビューコメント

If neither is found, inform the user and STOP.

Step 2: Build action plan

From the review results in conversation history, extract all findings and their severity levels.

Apply user's context argument to override decisions:

• If user says to address a specific finding → address it regardless of severity
• If user says to skip a specific finding → skip it regardless of severity
• If user says a finding is wrong → skip it (and for PR review, reply explaining disagreement)

For findings without explicit user guidance, follow the review's recommendations:

• ★★★ and ★★☆ → address
• ★☆☆ → address only if trivially fixable
• ☆☆☆ → skip

Display the action plan in Japanese:

## 対応計画
 
| # | タイトル | 重要度 | 対応 |
|---|---------|--------|------|
| 1 | ... | ★★★ | 対応する |
| 2 | ... | ★★☆ | 対応する |
| 3 | ... | ★☆☆ | スキップ (軽微) |
| 4 | ... | ☆☆☆ | スキップ (不同意) |

Step 3: Implement fixes

For each finding marked as "対応する", implement the fix:

1. Read the relevant source files or documents
2. Make changes using Edit tool (code) or Edit/Write tool (documents)
3. Briefly report what was changed

Step 4: PR review — Reply and resolve threads (PR review only)

Skip this step if the review was `/code-review`, `/style-review`, or `/doc-review`.

For PR review, fetch the unresolved threads to get thread IDs:

gh api graphql -f query='{ repository(owner: "OWNER", name: "REPO") { pullRequest(number: PR_NUMBER) { reviewThreads(first: 100) { nodes { id isResolved comments(first: 10) { nodes { id body author { login } path line startLine } } } } } } }'

Match each unresolved thread to the findings from the review report. Then for every thread (both addressed and skipped):

a. Reply to the thread in the reviewer's language (detect from original comment):

gh api graphql --input - << 'GQLEOF'
{"query":"mutation($body:String!){addPullRequestReviewThreadReply(input:{pullRequestReviewThreadId:\"THREAD_ID\",body:$body}){comment{id body}}}","variables":{"body":"MESSAGE"}}
GQLEOF

Reply content guidelines:

• Addressed findings: Explain what was fixed and how
• Skipped findings (disagreed): Politely explain why you disagree, with reasoning
• Skipped findings (trivial/optional): Acknowledge the point, explain why it's deferred

b. Resolve the thread:

gh api graphql -f query='mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: { threadId: "THREAD_ID" }) { thread { isResolved } } }'

Step 5: Summary

Display a detailed summary in Japanese. Each addressed finding must explain what was changed, why that approach was chosen, and how it was implemented.

## 対応結果
 
### 対応した指摘 (N件)
 
#### #1: 指摘タイトル (★★★)
 
- **何を**: `path/to/file:line` の関数Xを修正
- **なぜ**: 元のコードはYの場合にZが発生するため。レビュー指摘の通り、信頼境界での検証が欠落していた
- **どのように**: 入力値の検証をAパターンで追加。既存の `path/to/validator.ts:42` と同じ方式を採用した
 
#### #2: 指摘タイトル (★★☆)
 
- **何を**: `path/to/file:line` のモジュール構造を変更
- **なぜ**: 既存の設計パターン（`path/to/existing.ts` で確立）と不整合があったため
- **どのように**: 責務をBモジュールに移動し、インターフェースをCパターンに統一
 
### スキップした指摘 (N件)
 
- **#3** (★☆☆): 指摘タイトル — 軽微な改善であり、現状でも正しく動作するため見送り
- **#4** (☆☆☆): 指摘タイトル — 既存コードベース全体が同じアプローチを採用しており、ここだけ変更するのは不整合を生むため不同意
 
### 変更ファイル一覧
 
- `path/to/file1` — 変更概要
- `path/to/file2` — 変更概要
 
### 返信・解決したスレッド (N件) ← PR review only
 
- **#1**: @reviewer — 修正内容を説明、解決済み
- **#3**: @reviewer — 見送り理由を説明、解決済み

IMPORTANT: Do NOT commit or push. This command only implements changes (code or document) and handles PR threads.

Begin

Execute the workflow above. Start from Step 1.