5-handle-review git:20261106.1a5f142B

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/24b1dc5eba11ee98.

---
description: Handles PR review feedback by planning and implementing changes. Invoked when the user wants to handle PR review, address review comments, implement review feedback, or runs /aido:5-handle-review.
disable-model-invocation: false
---

# Handle PR Review

Plan and implement changes based on PR review and comments.

`SPEC.md` and `SPEC.md.draft` stand for the spec file and its draft: resolve them first, per "The
Specification File" in `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/guidelines/specification.md`.

Load `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/guidelines/language.md` and follow it in everything you write for a person.

## Step 0: Load Context

Before any implementation work:

- load the global guideline files once:
  - `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/guidelines/code-standards.md`
  - `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/guidelines/tdd.md`
  - `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/guidelines/git-workflow.md`
  - `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/guidelines/project-conventions.md`
  - `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/guidelines/testing-principles.md`, if testing patterns are relevant
- load the host repository's conventions as described in `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/guidelines/project-conventions.md`
  — its agent instruction files (`CLAUDE.md` and `AGENTS.md`) are authoritative on the topics
  they cover, and they tell you how to test, lint and structure code in this stack
- do NOT re-read guideline files during implementation — they are already loaded

## Process

1. fetch the reviews and comments from the PR
2. do an analysis of all comments and present a proposed approach for each one
3. **use `AskUserQuestion` to confirm before implementing anything** — wait for explicit approval
   - Question: "Which review feedback should I implement?"
   - Options: **Approve all** / **Pick specific items** / **Cancel**
4. implement each approved change, run quality checks, then commit separately
5. do NOT add comments to the PR - the user will handle communication with reviewers

## Quality Checks

Apply "Before Every Commit" in `git-workflow.md` before every commit.

## Important Conventions

- **DO NOT** modify `SPEC.md` during review (spec is already approved)
- **DO NOT** reorganize/rebase/squash commits (branch is already pushed)
- **Only append new commits** - let review changes be visible for transparency
- Only rewrite history if explicitly requested by user
- **Create one commit per change** - each review feedback item should result in a separate commit
- Follow git commit conventions from the loaded `git-workflow.md`

## After Implementing Changes

- Show a summary of changes made, then push; per "Pushing Changes" in `git-workflow.md`, the
  permission prompt asks for the user's approval
- If the user declines, they may want to make additional changes: wait for them

## Suggest Repository Conventions

After pushing, follow the process in `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/guidelines/evolving-guidelines.md`. It only proposes additions to this repository's `CLAUDE.md` or `AGENTS.md`, chosen by the user through `AskUserQuestion`.

Then end as "Ending a Skill" in `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/guidelines/language.md` describes. If the user
declines the push, end the same way, with what is left unpushed in `Needs you`.

Review comments can reveal conventions the codebase holds but hasn't written down. They can also be one reviewer's take on one file — the two look alike at the moment you read them, so run every candidate through the **generality test** in that process before presenting anything. Most review feedback is about *this* code and produces no convention; expect to propose nothing.

Worth examining:
- a codebase-specific helper or idiom the reviewer pointed to (e.g. a preferred method over a manual equivalent)
- architectural or design feedback that reveals an undocumented convention
- testing feedback that refines the testing strategy

Not worth examining — these fail the test by construction:
- a correction that applies only to the file under review
- a stylistic preference stated once, by one reviewer, without a codebase-wide rationale
- anything already covered by the repository's `CLAUDE.md` or `AGENTS.md`, or by a loaded guideline, however differently the reviewer phrased it