---

name: address-review description: Address PR review feedback, verify independently, and re-request review disable-model-invocation: true argument-hint: <pr-number>

Address Review Feedback

Address review comments on PR #$ARGUMENTS. Be adversarial about the feedback itself — verify that suggestions are correct before applying them.

PR Context

!gh pr view $ARGUMENTS

!gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/$ARGUMENTS/comments --jq '.[] | "---\n\(.path):\(.line // .original_line)\n\(.body)\n"'

!gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --comments

Instructions

Step 1: Gather All Feedback

Read every review comment above. Categorize each piece of feedback:

• Action Required — Reviewer flagged as blocking merge
• Recommended — Reviewer suggested addressing before merge
• Minor — Nits, style suggestions

Step 2: Independently Verify Each Finding

Do not blindly apply suggestions. For each piece of feedback:

1. Read the file in question — Use Glob/Grep/Read to find the relevant file and understand the full context, not just the diff snippet.
2. Assess whether the feedback is correct — Reviewers (including agent reviewers) can be wrong. Check:
   • Does the suggested change actually fix the issue identified?
   • Could the suggestion introduce a new bug or visual regression?
   • Is the reviewer missing context that makes the current code correct?
   • Does the suggestion align with project conventions in AGENTS.md?
3. For visual feedback — Check out the branch, run npm run dev, verify rendering at mobile and desktop widths, check both variants (/start and /build).
4. For security feedback — Take it seriously by default. Security suggestions should be applied unless you can clearly demonstrate they're wrong.

Step 3: Respond to Each Finding

For each piece of feedback, take one of these actions:

Apply — The feedback is correct. Make the change.

• Edit the file
• Run npm run dev and verify both variants render correctly
• Note what was changed

Partially apply — The core insight is right but the suggested fix isn't quite right.

• Implement a better fix that addresses the underlying concern
• Explain why you deviated from the exact suggestion

Reject with justification — The feedback is incorrect or doesn't apply.

• Explain clearly why the current code is correct
• Reference AGENTS.md or project conventions to support your reasoning
• Never reject feedback without a concrete justification

Escalate — You're unsure whether the feedback is valid.

• Flag it to the human with the evidence for and against
• Do not guess or silently skip

Step 4: Run Full Verification

After addressing all feedback:

1. Run npm run dev and verify both variants render correctly at mobile and desktop widths
2. Check TypeScript compilation — npx wrangler types && npx tsc --noEmit (Worker-side only)
3. Test form submission if any API or form changes were made
4. Spot-check your changes — Read through your own diff. Did you introduce any new issues while fixing the review feedback?
5. Check sizing — If the fixes significantly expanded the PR, flag whether it should be split.

Step 5: Commit and Push

• Commit fixes with clear messages linking to the review feedback: fix: Address review — <description>
• Keep fix commits separate from each other when they address unrelated feedback (easier to review the re-review)
• Push to the PR branch

Step 6: Post Summary and Re-request Review

Post a comment on the PR summarizing how each finding was addressed, then re-request review:

gh pr comment $ARGUMENTS --body "<summary>"
gh pr edit $ARGUMENTS --add-reviewer <reviewer>

Use this format for the summary:

## Review Feedback Addressed

| # | Finding | Action | Details |
|---|---------|--------|---------|
| 1 | <brief description> | Applied / Partially applied / Rejected | <what was done and why> |
| 2 | ... | ... | ... |

**Visual verification:** Both variants checked at mobile + desktop
**New commits:** <list of fix commits>

For any rejected findings, provide the full justification in the Details column so the reviewer can evaluate your reasoning.