pr-comment-analyzer（公关评论分析器）

GitHub PR Comment Analyzer

Analyze all review comments on a pull request to assess relevance, identify ambiguities, and generate a detailed report with suggested Q&A discussions. Unlike the PR resolver skill, this skill only analyzes and reports without making code changes.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when you need to:

• Analyze comment relevance without immediately acting on them
• Identify ambiguous feedback that needs clarification
• Generate reports on PR review status and comment landscape
• Facilitate discussions about comments through Q&A format
• Understand outdated comments that may no longer apply to the current code

Prerequisites

# Verify gh CLI is installed and authenticated
gh auth status

# If not authenticated, run:
gh auth login

Token requires repo scope for full repository access.

Workflow Overview

1. Fetch PR context → Get all review threads with metadata (always fresh from GitHub)
2. Analyze each comment → Assess relevance, type, intent, and clarity
3. Identify ambiguities → Flag unclear, contradictory, or potentially outdated comments
4. Generate report → Structured markdown report with findings
5. Create Q&A discussions → Suggest discussion prompts for ambiguous items
6. No code changes → Only analysis, reporting, and discussion generation

KEY PRINCIPLE: This is a read-only analysis skill. No files are modified, no commits are made, no threads are resolved.

Step 1: Fetch PR Context (Always Fresh)

CRITICAL: Always fetch fresh data from GitHub. Never reuse previously fetched context data.

1.1 Get PR Details

# Get PR metadata
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json number,title,state,headRefName,baseRefName,author,url,commits

1.2 Get Review Threads (GraphQL with Pagination)

Use GraphQL to fetch ALL review threads with full metadata. The API returns max 100 items per request, so pagination is required.

# First page (no cursor)
gh api graphql -f query='
query($owner: String!, $repo: String!, $prNumber: Int!, $cursor: String) {
  repository(owner: $owner, name: $repo) {
    pullRequest(number: $prNumber) {
      reviewThreads(first: 100, after: $cursor) {
        pageInfo {
          hasNextPage
          endCursor
        }
        nodes {
          id
          isResolved
          isOutdated
          path
          line
          comments(first: 100) {
            nodes {
              id
              databaseId
              body
              author { login }
              createdAt
              path
              line
              diffHunk
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}' -f owner=OWNER -f repo=REPO -F prNumber=PR_NUMBER

1.3 Get Commit History

# Get commits in the PR to understand code evolution
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json commits --json body | jq '.commits[] | {oid, messageHeadline, committedDate}'

1.4 Collect ALL Threads (With Pagination)

IMPORTANT: Continue fetching pages until hasNextPage is false. Collect ALL threads before analyzing.

# Pseudocode for pagination
ALL_THREADS = []
CURSOR = null

while true:
  RESULT = fetch_with_cursor(CURSOR)
  ALL_THREADS.append(RESULT.nodes)
  if not RESULT.pageInfo.hasNextPage:
    break
  CURSOR = RESULT.pageInfo.endCursor

Step 2: Analyze Each Comment

For every comment in the PR, perform comprehensive analysis:

2.1 Extract Comment Metadata

- Thread ID (for reference)
- File path and line number
- Author and timestamp
- Thread resolution status (resolved/unresolved)
- Thread outdated status
- Full comment text
- Code diff context (diffHunk)

2.2 Assess Relevance

For each comment, determine its current relevance:

Analysis Method:

• Check if file still exists in PR
• Verify line number still contains relevant code
• Cross-reference with commit history to see if code was modified/removed
• Compare diffHunk with current code context

2.3 Classify Comment Type

Identify what type of feedback this is:

2.4 Assess Intent Clarity

Determine how clearly the comment communicates intent:

2.5 Check for Contradictions

Identify comments that contradict each other:

• Different reviewers suggesting opposite approaches
• Multiple solutions proposed for same issue
• Conflicting coding standards referenced

2.6 Outdated Status Analysis

Determine if comment is outdated:

Step 3: Identify Ambiguities

Flag comments that need clarification:

3.1 Ambiguity Categories

1. UNCLEAR INTENT
   - What exactly needs to change?
   - What's the success criterion?
   - Examples: "Simplify this", "Make it better", "Consider X"

2. CONTRADICTORY
   - Multiple comments suggest opposite solutions
   - Conflicting coding standards or approaches

3. OUTDATED BUT UNRESOLVED
   - Comment likely refers to old code
   - But thread remains unresolved
   - Needs clarification: still relevant?

4. DOMAIN-SPECIFIC
   - Uses terminology without context
   - References external docs/standards
   - Requires subject matter expertise

5. ASSUMED CONTEXT
   - References previous discussions
   - Assumes knowledge of system architecture
   - Missing background information

6. MULTIPLE VALID SOLUTIONS
   - Comment mentions several approaches
   - Unclear which is preferred
   - No decision guidance provided

3.2 Severity Scoring

Score each ambiguity for impact:

• CRITICAL: Blocks understanding or implementation
• HIGH: Significant confusion, multiple interpretations
• MEDIUM: Some clarity needed, but intent somewhat clear
• LOW: Minor ambiguity, intent is mostly clear

Step 4: Generate Analysis Report

Create a comprehensive markdown report with findings:

4.1 Report Structure

# PR Comment Analysis Report

**PR:** #<number> - <title>
**Author:** <author>
**Branch:** <branch>
**Analysis Date:** <timestamp>

## Summary Statistics

- Total Comments: N
- Comments Analyzed: N
- Highly Relevant: N
- Potentially Relevant: N
- Outdated: N
- Ambiguous: N
- Resolved: N

## Comments by Relevance

### Highly Relevant Comments (N)
[List each with metadata]

### Potentially Relevant Comments (N)
[List with verification notes]

### Outdated Comments (N)
[List with reason marked outdated]

### Ambiguous Comments (N)
[List with ambiguity type and severity]

### Already Resolved Comments (N)
[List for reference]

## Identified Issues

### Contradictions (if any)
[List conflicting comments]

### High-Impact Ambiguities
[Prioritized list needing clarification]

### Comments Needing Verification
[List potentially outdated but unresolved]

## Recommendations

[Summary of key findings and suggested Q&A discussions]

4.2 Comment Entry Format

For each comment in the report, include:

**Comment ID:** <thread_id>
**File:** <path> (line <number>)
**Author:** <author> (<date>)
**Status:** <relevance_status> | <clarity_level> | <type>
**Resolved:** <yes/no>

**Text:**
> <comment_body>

**Analysis:**
- Intent: <description>
- Ambiguities: <list or "None">
- Relevance: <explanation>
- Recommended Q&A: [see Q&A section]

Step 5: Generate Q&A Discussion Prompts

For each ambiguous or high-impact comment, create discussion prompts:

5.1 Q&A Format

For each flagged item:

### Discussion: [Thread ID]

**Comment:** > [quote]

**Clarification Questions:**
1. [Question 1 - specific, focused]
2. [Question 2 - alternative interpretation]
3. [Question 3 - implementation details]

**Suggested Response Approaches:**
- [ ] Approach A: [Option with tradeoffs]
- [ ] Approach B: [Option with tradeoffs]
- [ ] Ask for: [Additional information needed]

5.2 Question Categories

Design questions for different ambiguity types:

For UNCLEAR INTENT:

• "Could you clarify what 'X' means in this context?"
• "Are you suggesting [specific change] or [alternative]?"
• "What's the success criterion for this change?"

For OUTDATED COMMENTS:

• "This code has changed since your comment. Is this feedback still relevant?"
• "The file/line structure differs. Did you intend to comment on [new location]?"
• "Should we consider this for [other file/approach]?"

For CONTRADICTIONS:

• "I notice [Comment A] and [Comment B] suggest different approaches. Which is preferred?"
• "Can you help reconcile the difference between [Solution 1] and [Solution 2]?"

For DOMAIN-SPECIFIC:

• "Could you provide a brief example of what you mean by [term]?"
• "Is there a reference or doc I should review for context?"

Step 6: Output Only (No Code Changes)

6.1 Save Report

# Save markdown report to file
cat > "pr-${PR_NUMBER}-analysis.md" << 'EOF'
[Generated report]
EOF

# Print to stdout as well
cat "pr-${PR_NUMBER}-analysis.md"

6.2 Verification Checklist

Before finalizing report, verify:

• All threads fetched (checked pagination)
• No threads were skipped
• All ambiguities identified and documented
• Q&A discussions generated for flagged items
• Report is current (fresh GitHub fetch)
• No code modifications made
• No threads resolved
• All files remain unchanged

Complete Example Script

#!/bin/bash
# Complete workflow for PR comment analysis

PR_NUMBER=$1
REPO="owner/repo"  # Or extract from current git remote
OWNER=${REPO%/*}
REPO_NAME=${REPO#*/}

# 1. Fetch fresh context from GitHub
echo "Fetching PR #$PR_NUMBER..."
PR_INFO=$(gh pr view $PR_NUMBER --json number,title,headRefName,author)
echo "PR: $(echo $PR_INFO | jq -r '.title')"
echo "Author: $(echo $PR_INFO | jq -r '.author.login')"

# 2. Fetch ALL review threads with pagination
echo "Fetching all review comments..."
ALL_THREADS="[]"
CURSOR=""
HAS_NEXT=true

while [ "$HAS_NEXT" = "true" ]; do
  if [ -z "$CURSOR" ]; then
    CURSOR_ARG=""
  else
    CURSOR_ARG="-f cursor=\"$CURSOR\""
  fi

  RESULT=$(gh api graphql -f query='
query($owner: String!, $repo: String!, $prNumber: Int!, $cursor: String) {
  repository(owner: $owner, name: $repo) {
    pullRequest(number: $prNumber) {
      reviewThreads(first: 100, after: $cursor) {
        pageInfo {
          hasNextPage
          endCursor
        }
        nodes {
          id
          isResolved
          isOutdated
          path
          line
          comments(first: 100) {
            nodes {
              body
              author { login }
              createdAt
              path
              line
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}' -f owner=$OWNER -f repo=$REPO_NAME -F prNumber=$PR_NUMBER $CURSOR_ARG)

  # Process results
  PAGE_THREADS=$(echo $RESULT | jq '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes')
  ALL_THREADS=$(echo "$ALL_THREADS $PAGE_THREADS" | jq -s 'add')

  HAS_NEXT=$(echo $RESULT | jq -r '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.pageInfo.hasNextPage')
  CURSOR=$(echo $RESULT | jq -r '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.pageInfo.endCursor')
done

# 3. Analyze comments (Claude does this part)
TOTAL=$(echo $ALL_THREADS | jq 'length')
RESOLVED=$(echo $ALL_THREADS | jq '[.[] | select(.isResolved == true)] | length')
UNRESOLVED=$(echo $ALL_THREADS | jq '[.[] | select(.isResolved == false)] | length')
OUTDATED=$(echo $ALL_THREADS | jq '[.[] | select(.isOutdated == true)] | length')

echo "Total threads: $TOTAL"
echo "Unresolved: $UNRESOLVED"
echo "Resolved: $RESOLVED"
echo "Outdated: $OUTDATED"

# 4. Generate report and Q&A discussions
# (Analysis performed interactively by Claude)

echo ""
echo "✅ Analysis complete. Report saved to: pr-${PR_NUMBER}-analysis.md"

Key Differences from PR Resolver

Reference

See references/github_api_reference.md for:

• Detailed GitHub API pagination patterns
• GraphQL query templates
• API rate limits and error handling
• Comment intent patterns and classification