PR comments: sequential review workflow

Walk the current PR’s feedback in order, one topic at a time. Treat each comment as something to read and answer; treat each underlying issue as something to fix once. If several comments say the same thing (or the first fix already covers a later remark), do not redo the same code work—use one commit for that shared fix and reply on each later comment pointing at that commit (e.g. “Addressed in <sha> — same fix as …”).

Prerequisites

• gh authenticated (gh auth status).
• A PR for the checked-out branch (gh pr view without a number targets it).
• Follow repo rules for git write: do not commit or push unless authorized for this session.

Pick the best gh command per step

gh pr …, gh api (REST), and gh api graphql hit different GitHub APIs—same intent, not interchangeable. There is no blanket rule favoring one surface; choose whatever is correct and clearest for that action.

Facts that drive the choice (not preferences): gh pr view does not return inline PullRequestReviewComment payloads in JSON (see §2.1)—load those with REST or GraphQL or you will miss most line-level review and Copilot feedback.

1. Resolve the PR

From the repo root:

gh pr view --json number,url,title,headRefName,baseRefName

If no PR exists for the branch, stop and tell the user.

2. Load all review artifacts (do not skip inline)

Build a full work list before changing code. Most reviewer and Copilot feedback is on PullRequestReviewComment (inline on the diff), not in issue comments. If you only run gh pr view, you will miss that feedback.

2.1 What gh pr view does and does not include

gh pr view --help lists JSON fields such as comments, reviews, latestReviews, reviewRequests—there is no field for inline review comments or reviewThreads. No gh pr subcommand exposes GET /repos/.../pulls/{pr}/comments.

Conclusion: after only gh pr view, you are still blind to inline comments until you also load PullRequestReviewComment data (REST or GraphQL below).

2.2 Inline review comments (required — pick the best fetch)

You must load inline comments every time; gh pr alone cannot. Choose one or combine:

A — GraphQL: best when you want threads (id, isResolved), grouping, inline bodies path / line / author, and thread.id for resolve—in one shaped query.

Resolve owner and repo once (examples):

gh repo view --json owner,name -q '"\(.owner.login)/\(.name)"'
# or: OWNER=$(gh repo view --json owner -q .owner.login); NAME=$(gh repo view --json name -q .name)

Example query (raise first / paginate if the PR is huge):

gh api graphql -f query='
query($owner: String!, $name: String!, $number: Int!) {
  repository(owner: $owner, name: $name) {
    pullRequest(number: $number) {
      reviewThreads(first: 100) {
        pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor }
        nodes {
          id
          isResolved
          isOutdated
          comments(first: 50) {
            nodes {
              databaseId
              body
              path
              line
              createdAt
              author { login }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}' -f owner='OWNER' -f name='REPO' -F number=PR_NUMBER

If pageInfo.hasNextPage is true, follow with additional requests using after: cursors on reviewThreads (same pattern as standard GraphQL pagination).

Use thread.id (Node id) for §3.7 resolve. Use each comment’s databaseId as the REST id when posting .../pulls/{n}/comments/{id}/replies (they are the same numeric id GitHub uses in the REST API).

B — REST: flat list of every inline comment—minimal mental overhead; each node has id for .../replies.

gh api "repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/PR_NUMBER/comments" --paginate

Each item includes id, body, path, line, in_reply_to_id, created_at, html_url, etc. No thread grouping or isResolved—prefer A when you need those.

2.3 Issue-level and summary context

Use gh pr where it is strongest (readable + structured issue/review summaries):

gh pr view [<PR_NUMBER>] --comments
gh pr view [<PR_NUMBER>] --json comments,reviews,latestReviews
gh pr diff [<PR_NUMBER>]

2.4 Merge into one ordered work list

Combine issue/timeline comments (from JSON or --comments) with every inline comment (from §2.2). Normalize timestamps and sort chronologically (oldest first) unless the user specifies otherwise. When using GraphQL threads, flatten reviewThreads → comments for ordering, but keep thread.id handy for resolve and for understanding which replies belong together.

Duplication: cluster items that ask for the same change; implement once and reply to each comment in that cluster.

3. Process comments in order (one pass, dedupe fixes)

For each item in chronological order:

3.1 Read

Combine whatever helps: gh pr view output, gh api / GraphQL payloads, gh pr diff, and gh pr view --web if the UI makes thread context obvious. Goal is complete understanding, not a specific subcommand.

3.2 Interpret

Classify: change request, question, nit, or discussion. Note which files/behavior it touches.

3.3 Judge

Decide if it is right, unclear, or you disagree. Skip or discuss without code when appropriate.

3.4 Implement (when needed)

If this comment’s underlying issue is already fixed by a commit you made for an earlier comment in this run, do not edit the code again—go to 3.6 and reply that it is covered.

Otherwise, apply only that scoped fix. Same cluster → one commit for that cluster.

3.5 Commit and push

• Single distinct issue (possibly mentioned by several comments): one commit; push when ready.
• Separate issues: separate commits.

After pushing, capture commit SHA (e.g. git rev-parse HEAD) for replies.

3.6 Reply in the right place

Timeline / issue comment — gh pr comment is the right surface:

gh pr comment [<PR_NUMBER>] --body '...'

Inline thread — REST reply endpoint (only reliable way to nest under the line):

gh api -X POST "repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<PR_NUMBER>/comments/<COMMENT_ID>/replies" -f body='...'

<COMMENT_ID> is the REST id / GraphQL databaseId of the comment you answer (from §2.2).

The PR number is required on this path. …/pulls/comments/<id>/replies (no number) is a valid prefix for reading and editing a single comment, so it looks plausible, but it 404s for replies.

Formal review summary when it fits the workflow:

gh pr review [<PR_NUMBER>] --comment -b '...'

Duplicate-addressed items: short replies (“Same fix as … in <sha>.”).

3.7 Resolve review threads (optional)

When appropriate (fixed, declined with closure, etc.—not open questions): GraphQL is the API that supports resolve. Use thread.id from §2.2 A:

gh api graphql -f query='
mutation($id: ID!) {
  resolveReviewThread(input: { threadId: $id }) {
    thread { isResolved }
  }
}' -f id=<THREAD_ID>

If you only used REST B, fetch thread ids via a GraphQL query once, or resolve in the browser—either is fine if it matches team practice.

4. Tracking progress

• Comments answered vs open.
• Which commit SHA fixed which cluster.

Anti-patterns

• Treating gh pr view as sufficient for “all PR comments”—you still need inline data from REST or GraphQL (§2.1–2.2).
• Mixing unrelated fixes into one commit.
• Silent pushes with no reply (timeline and/or .../replies).
• Using gh pr comment where a REST threaded reply was needed (feedback belongs on the diff line).
• Resolving threads that are still active debate.

Not an anti-pattern: one commit for several comments that share the same issue; reply on each item with pointers to that commit.

Related

• Creating issues from gaps: gh-issue.