claude-dev-env 1.0.0

package/skills/pr-review-responder/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+# PR Review Responder Skill
+
+Automatically find and respond to GitHub PR review comments before pushing code.
+
+## What It Does
+
+This skill helps you:
+- Detect if your current branch has an open PR
+- Find unresponded review comments from reviewers
+- Match review comments to your recent code changes
+- Draft concise, specific responses (format: `✅ **Fixed**: [what changed]`)
+- Post responses directly to GitHub review comment threads
+
+## When To Use
+
+Use this skill:
+- **Before every git push** when addressing PR feedback
+- After committing fixes to reviewer comments
+- When you want to notify reviewers what was addressed
+- To speed up PR review cycles
+
+## Files in This Package
+
+- **SKILL.md**: Core instructions and step-by-step workflow for Claude
+- **EXAMPLES.md**: 8 real-world examples with different scenarios
+- **PRINCIPLES.md**: Theory and best practices for PR communication
+- **scripts/respond_to_reviews.py**: Standalone automation script
+- **README.md**: This file
+
+## Quick Start
+
+### Using with Claude
+
+```bash
+# 1. Make changes addressing PR feedback
+git add .
+git commit -m "fix: address PR feedback"
+
+# 2. Activate the skill
+"Respond to PR review comments"
+
+# 3. Skill finds comments, drafts responses, shows them for approval
+# 4. Confirm and push
+git push
+```
+
+### Using Standalone Script
+
+```bash
+# Auto-detect PR and respond to comments
+python scripts/respond_to_reviews.py
+
+# Specify PR number
+python scripts/respond_to_reviews.py --pr 123
+
+# Auto-approve responses (no confirmation)
+python scripts/respond_to_reviews.py --auto-approve
+```
+
+## Testing
+
+Test the skill with these queries:
+
+**Should activate**:
+- "Respond to PR review comments"
+- "Reply to code review feedback before pushing"
+- "Find and respond to reviewer comments on my PR"
+- "Post responses to review comments"
+
+**Should NOT activate**:
+- "Create a new PR" (different skill)
+- "Review this code" (code review, not response)
+- "What are the PR comments?" (just viewing, not responding)
+
+## Requirements
+
+- `gh` CLI installed and authenticated (`gh auth login`)
+- Git repository with GitHub remote
+- Current branch with an open PR
+- Changes committed (not just staged)
+- Python 3.8+ (for standalone script)
+
+## Integration Options
+
+### As Pre-Push Hook
+
+Add to `.git/hooks/pre-push`:
+```bash
+#!/bin/bash
+echo "Checking for PR review comments..."
+python .claude/skills/pr-review-responder/scripts/respond_to_reviews.py
+```
+
+### As Slash Command
+
+Add to `.claude/settings.json`:
+```json
+{
+  "commands": {
+    "/respond": "Use pr-review-responder skill to respond to PR comments"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+Usage: `/respond`
+
+### As npm Script
+
+Add to `package.json`:
+```json
+{
+  "scripts": {
+    "respond": "python .claude/skills/pr-review-responder/scripts/respond_to_reviews.py"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+Usage: `npm run respond`
+
+## Example Response Format
+
+```
+✅ **Fixed**: Removed wrapper class, using Path().read_bytes() directly
+✅ **Fixed**: Extracted upload logic to storage.upload_file()
+✅ **Fixed**: Moved animation timing from Python context to CSS
+✅ **Fixed**: Added type hints (int, str, Optional[Dict])
+📝 **Noted**: Will refactor to service layer in separate PR
+```
+
+## Troubleshooting
+
+**"No PR found for this branch"**:
+- Create PR first: `gh pr create`
+- Or specify PR: `--pr NUMBER`
+
+**"No review comments found"**:
+- PR might not have reviews yet
+- Or all comments already responded to
+
+**"Permission denied"**:
+- Run: `gh auth refresh -h github.com -s repo`
+- Ensure write access to repository
+
+**"Cannot find matching changes"**:
+- Review comments don't match files you modified
+- Check that you committed the changes
+- Comments might be on different files
+
+## Best Practices
+
+1. **Run before every push** - Make it part of your workflow
+2. **Be specific** - Say what changed, not just "fixed"
+3. **One response per comment** - Don't combine
+4. **Acknowledge good catches** - "Good catch! Fixed by..."
+5. **Keep it concise** - One sentence maximum
+
+## Advanced Usage
+
+See [EXAMPLES.md](EXAMPLES.md) for:
+- Multiple commits addressing different comments
+- Partial addressing (some comments fixed, some deferred)
+- Handling conversation threads
+- Custom response editing
+
+See [PRINCIPLES.md](PRINCIPLES.md) for:
+- Theory on PR communication
+- Anti-patterns to avoid
+- Cultural context for different teams
+- Psychology of review responses
+
+## Maintenance
+
+**Updating the skill**:
+1. Modify SKILL.md for instruction changes
+2. Add examples to EXAMPLES.md
+3. Update principles in PRINCIPLES.md
+4. Restart Claude Code to reload
+
+**Testing changes**:
+```bash
+# Test skill activation
+"Respond to PR review comments"
+
+# Test standalone script
+python scripts/respond_to_reviews.py --help
+```
+
+## Version History
+
+**v1.0.0** (2025-01-14):
+- Initial release
+- Support for inline code review comments
+- Auto-detection of current PR
+- Matching changes to comments
+- Drafting responses with standard format
+- Posting via GitHub API
+- Standalone Python script
+
+## Contributing
+
+To improve this skill:
+1. Add new examples to EXAMPLES.md
+2. Document anti-patterns in PRINCIPLES.md
+3. Enhance matching logic in scripts/respond_to_reviews.py
+4. Test with various PR scenarios
+
+## License
+
+Part of the Claude Code skills library.

package/skills/pr-review-responder/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+---
+name: pr-review-responder
+description: MANDATORY systematic protocol for responding to GitHub PR review comments. Use when addressing PR feedback, code review comments, or before pushing PR fixes. Triggers on "address feedback", "fix review comments", "respond to code review", "handle PR feedback", "reply to reviewer".
+---
+@~/.claude/skills/pr-review-responder/EXAMPLES.md
+@~/.claude/skills/pr-review-responder/PRINCIPLES.md
+
+<EXTREMELY_IMPORTANT>
+# PR Review Responder
+
+**This skill is MANDATORY when responding to PR review comments.**
+
+IF you are addressing PR review feedback, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. YOU MUST FOLLOW THIS PROTOCOL.
+
+**Why this matters:** A typical multi-commit PR with many review comments is easy to fumble. Missing even one comment forces another review round.
+
+## MANDATORY FIRST RESPONSE PROTOCOL
+
+Before doing ANYTHING:
+
+1. [ ] Fetch ALL review comments with `per_page=100` pagination
+2. [ ] Create TodoWrite checklist with ONE item per comment
+3. [ ] Fix comments ONE AT A TIME, marking complete as you go
+4. [ ] Draft reply for EVERY comment (DO NOT post directly)
+5. [ ] Create ONE review fix commit (DO NOT squash with original)
+6. [ ] Run pre-push-review skill before pushing
+7. [ ] Verify ALL draft replies are prepared
+
+**Responding WITHOUT completing this checklist = automatic failure.**
+
+## Critical Rules - NO EXCEPTIONS
+
+### Rule 1: Fetch ALL Comments First
+
+**NEVER start fixing without fetching every comment.**
+
+- [ ] FORBIDDEN: Assuming you know what the comments say
+- [ ] FORBIDDEN: Using default pagination (30 results, causes missed comments)
+- [x] REQUIRED: `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments?per_page=100`
+- [x] REQUIRED: Check for additional pages if 100+ comments
+
+**WHY:** Missing comments forces extra review rounds. Default pagination (30) silently drops comments.
+
+### Rule 2: TodoWrite Checklist Before Any Fixes
+
+**NEVER make fixes without a checklist.**
+
+- [ ] FORBIDDEN: Fixing comments as you read them
+- [ ] FORBIDDEN: Bulk-updating todos after fixing multiple items
+- [x] REQUIRED: Create TodoWrite with one item per comment BEFORE any fix
+- [x] REQUIRED: Include BOTH fix items AND reply items
+
+**WHY:** Without a checklist, you WILL miss comments.
+
+Example checklist:
+```
+- [ ] Fix: src/views.py:45 - Use shared upload function
+- [ ] Fix: src/models.py:23 - Rename user_name to display_name
+- [ ] Reply: src/views.py:45 - Post inline response
+- [ ] Reply: src/models.py:23 - Post inline response
+```
+
+### Rule 3: Fix Systematically
+
+**NEVER skip ahead or bulk-update.**
+
+For each comment in TodoWrite:
+1. Read the comment
+2. Make the fix
+3. Mark todo item complete: `[x]`
+4. Verify fix addresses comment
+5. Move to next comment
+
+### Rule 4: Draft Replies for User Review
+
+**NEVER post comments directly. Draft them for user to review and post.**
+
+Format each draft reply:
+```
+DRAFT REPLIES (for user to post):
+================================
+
+Comment #1 (file.py:45 - "description"):
+Reply: Fixed: [specific description of what was changed]
+
+Comment #2 (file.py:67 - "description"):
+Reply: Fixed: [specific description of what was changed]
+```
+
+**Reply quality rules:**
+- Concise: One sentence maximum
+- Specific: Say WHAT changed, not just "fixed"
+- Actionable: Reviewer can verify the fix
+
+### Rule 5: Separate Review Fix Commit
+
+**NEVER squash review fixes into the original commit.**
+
+- [ ] FORBIDDEN: Amending the original commit with review fixes
+- [ ] FORBIDDEN: Multiple fix commits for the same review round
+- [x] REQUIRED: ONE new commit for all review fixes from this round
+
+**WHY:** Squashing shows the ENTIRE feature as new on GitHub instead of just the delta. Keeping commits separate lets the reviewer click the second commit to see exactly what changed.
+
+```bash
+git add [files]
+git commit -m "fix: address code review feedback
+
+- Fixed: [specific change 1]
+- Fixed: [specific change 2]
+
+Addresses review comments from PR #{number}"
+```
+
+### Rule 6: Run Pre-Push Review
+
+**NEVER push without running pre-push-review skill.**
+
+- [ ] FORBIDDEN: Pushing without pre-push-review
+- [ ] FORBIDDEN: Manually handling draft conversion
+- [x] REQUIRED: Invoke pre-push-review skill which handles all 24 checks + draft conversion
+
+**WHY:** Pre-push-review catches ALL patterns reviewers flag: code style, draft status, commit structure. Delegating to it ensures nothing is missed.
+
+### Rule 7: Verify All Drafts Complete
+
+**NEVER declare success without matching draft count to comment count.**
+
+- Count of drafts must match count of comments
+- Each draft must reference a specific fix
+- Present drafts in clear format for user to copy
+
+## Common Rationalizations That Mean You're About To Fail
+
+- **"I know what the comments say, no need to fetch"** -> WRONG. Missing comments forces extra review rounds.
+- **"Let me fix this one quickly before making the checklist"** -> WRONG. Without checklist you will miss others.
+- **"I'll post the replies myself to save time"** -> WRONG. User controls what gets posted.
+- **"This is a small fix, I can squash it"** -> WRONG. Squashing hides the delta from reviewers.
+- **"Pre-push review is overkill for review fixes"** -> WRONG. It catches style issues you introduced while fixing.
+
+</EXTREMELY_IMPORTANT>
+
+---
+
+## Final Report Format
+
+Only after ALL validations pass:
+
+```
+PR Review Response Complete
+
+Fetched: {X} comments (with per_page=100)
+Fixed: {X} issues
+Pre-push review: PASSED (all 24 checks)
+Draft replies: {X} prepared for user
+Commits: 2 (original + review fix, NOT squashed)
+
+TodoWrite checklist: 100% complete
+
+DRAFT REPLIES FOR USER TO POST:
+================================
+[List all draft replies here]
+
+PR #{number}: {url}
+
+Ready to push!
+```
+
+## Edge Cases
+
+**No review comments found:**
+Report with verification that per_page=100 was used.
+
+**Comments but no matching changes:**
+List the comments and their file locations, ask if fixes were forgotten.
+
+**PR already merged:**
+Cannot add review responses to merged PRs. Report error.
+
+## Response Format Rules
+
+**Good replies:**
+- Fixed: Removed wrapper function, using direct storage.upload_file()
+- Fixed: Extracted shared logic to utils/view_helpers.py
+- Fixed: Renamed user_name to display_name to avoid User.username conflict
+- Noted: Will handle in separate PR to avoid scope creep
+
+**Bad replies:**
+- "Fixed" (not specific)
+- "Done" (lazy)
+- "Addressed your comment" (tells reviewer nothing)
+
+## Requirements
+
+- `gh` CLI installed and authenticated
+- Current branch must have an open PR
+- Git repository with remote on GitHub
+- Write access to repository
+
+## Remember
+
+This protocol prevents repeated review failures. Being systematic is NOT optional. Missing even ONE comment wastes everyone's time.