skills/ce-resolve-pr-feedback/references/full-mode.md

# Full Mode

Read this reference when Mode Detection (in SKILL.md) routes to **Full Mode** — no argument given, a PR number was provided, or a whole-PR URL (`.../pull/N` with no comment fragment) was provided. Full mode processes all unresolved threads on the PR. When the argument is a PR URL, parse the host, `OWNER/REPO`, and number from it — the host feeds the `GH_HOST` prefix below, and `OWNER/REPO` targets the correct repo for a fork→upstream PR.

The shape: **fetch once, judge centrally, fan out only the fixes.** The orchestrator (you) holds every thread from a single fetch, so the legitimacy judgment happens in your context — where you can dedup reads, spot a systematically-wrong reviewer across threads, and weigh the author's design intent. Subagents are dispatched only to *implement* fixes you've already approved. Do not fan out the judgment: spinning a subagent per thread to decide validity re-pays per-agent overhead, re-reads the same files, and throws away the cross-thread view — and you'd pay it even for threads that turn out to be skips.

## 1. Fetch Unresolved Threads

If no PR number was provided, detect from the current branch:
```bash
gh pr view --json number -q .number
```

Then fetch all feedback using the GraphQL script at [scripts/get-pr-comments](../scripts/get-pr-comments). Set `SKILL_DIR` to the absolute directory you loaded the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md from — the Bash tool's CWD is the user's project, not the skill dir, and shell state does not persist between Bash calls, so set it inline in each block below that runs a bundled script. If the bundled script is missing on disk the call fails plainly; fall back to the `gh` commands shown after this block.

**GitHub Enterprise host.** The bundled `gh api graphql` scripts hit `gh`'s default host unless told otherwise, so on a GHE PR they would wrongly target `github.com`. Derive the host: if the caller passed a full PR **URL**, take its host; otherwise read it from `gh repo view --json url -q .url`. Then — because shell state does **not** persist between separate Bash calls — pass the host as a `GH_HOST=<host>` **env prefix inline on every bundled-script call** (`gh api` honors `GH_HOST` as the request host). A single `export` in one block does **not** carry to the reply/resolve/verify blocks that run as later Bash calls, which is why each call below shows the prefix. On `github.com`, drop the `GH_HOST=<host> ` prefix entirely.

```bash
PR_HOST=$(printf '%s' "<pr-url-if-one-was-passed>" | sed -n 's#^https\?://\([^/]*\)/.*#\1#p');
[ -z "$PR_HOST" ] && PR_HOST=$(gh repo view --json url -q .url 2>/dev/null | sed -n 's#^https\?://\([^/]*\)/.*#\1#p');
echo "$PR_HOST"   # github.com -> no prefix; any other host -> prefix GH_HOST=<host> on each script call below
```

```bash
SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md>";
GH_HOST=<derived-host> bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/get-pr-comments" PR_NUMBER OWNER/REPO   # omit GH_HOST=<derived-host> on github.com
```

**Pass the base `OWNER/REPO`** (parsed from the PR URL, when one was given) as the second arg. `get-pr-comments` otherwise falls back to `gh repo view` in the *current checkout* — so for a fork→upstream PR handed in as a URL, omitting it would fetch review feedback from the fork (or fail) instead of the upstream base repo. Every `get-pr-comments` call below (fetch and verify) takes the same `OWNER/REPO`.

Returns a JSON object with these keys:

| Key | Contents | Has file/line? | Resolvable? |
|-----|----------|---------------|-------------|
| `pending_review` | Node ID of your own unsubmitted (PENDING) review on this PR, or `null` | n/a | n/a |
| `review_threads` | Unresolved inline code review threads (includes outdated); each wrapper carries `root_comment_id` for REST replies and each node carries its GraphQL thread ID for resolution | Yes | Yes (GraphQL) |
| `pr_comments` | Top-level PR conversation comments | No | No |
| `review_bodies` | Review submission bodies with non-empty text | No | No |
| `pr_author` / `viewer` | The PR author's login and the acting account's login, for judging identity in step 2 | n/a | n/a |

**All three feedback surfaces are in scope.** `review_threads`, `pr_comments`, and `review_bodies` are judged the same way in step 3; only the reply and resolve mechanics differ (step 7). The fetch excludes nothing by identity — a top-level comment from the PR author is the ordinary way a human asks for a change on an agent-opened PR, so it is feedback like any other.

**Stop here if `pending_review` is non-null.** Thread replies posted while you hold an unsubmitted review are absorbed into that draft: the reply call returns a comment ID and URL as if it succeeded, but nothing is visible to the reviewer until the draft is submitted. Do not proceed into steps 2-8 — the fixes would land while every reply silently disappeared. Tell the user they have an unsubmitted review on the PR, that it must be submitted or discarded before this skill can reply, and stop. Do not submit or discard it yourself; a draft review is unsent human writing.

If the script fails, fall back to:
```bash
gh pr view PR_NUMBER --json reviews,comments
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/PR_NUMBER/comments
```

## 2. Triage: Separate New from Pending

Before processing, reconcile the reply and resolution state of each piece of feedback.

**Review threads**: An ordinarily handled thread is complete only when it has both a visible, submitted substantive reply and authoritative thread resolution. Reconcile those conditions independently:

- A reply that explicitly defers a human choice (e.g., "need to align on this", "going to think through this", or options without a decision) is a **pending decision**. Keep the thread open and do not re-process it.
- A reply that records a completed fix or reply verdict while the thread is still open is **resolution-pending**. Do not repost the reply or reapply the fix; carry the existing visible reply to step 7 and complete only the missing resolution after pending-review state is empty.
- A thread without either kind of substantive response is **new**.

**PR comments and review bodies**: These have no resolve mechanism, so they reappear on every run. Apply two filters in order:

1. **Actionability**: An item is actionable when it is someone's open request to this PR — something to fix, answer, or decide. This is also what keeps the run from looping on its own output: a reply posted by this run or an earlier one is a record of handling, not a request, so it drops here whether it reports a fix or carries a parked `needs-human` decision — that parked item is already tracked as itself, and re-reading its own write-up as fresh feedback is how the loop would never settle. Who posted an item never decides this, including the account that opened the PR. Examples: review wrapper text ("Here are some automated review suggestions..."), approvals ("this looks great!"), status badges ("Validated"), CI summaries with no follow-up asks. If there's nothing to fix, answer, or decide, it's not actionable -- drop it from the count entirely.
2. **Already replied**: For actionable items, check the PR conversation for an existing reply that quotes and addresses the feedback. If a reply already exists, skip. If not, it's new.

The distinction is about content, not who posted what. A deferral from a teammate, a previous skill run, or a manual reply all count. Similarly, actionability is about content -- bot feedback that requests a specific code change is actionable; a bot's boilerplate header wrapping those requests is not.

**Silent drop.** Non-actionable items are dropped without narration. Do not announce, list, or count dropped items in conversation, the task list, or the step 9 summary. Review-bot wrappers from CodeRabbit, Codex, Gemini Code Assist, and Copilot (bodies like "Here are some automated review suggestions...") commonly appear here -- recognize them by their boilerplate content, drop silently. The fetch layer pre-filters only blank bodies. Every identity and surface — the PR author, CI/status bots such as Codecov, review bots — relies on this content-aware check, so identity reuse or format changes cannot silently hide actionable feedback.

If there are no new or resolution-pending items across all feedback types, skip steps 3-8 and go straight to step 9. If only resolution-pending threads remain, skip steps 3-6 and go straight to step 7.

## 3. Consolidate & Decide (the legitimacy gate)

This is the gate. Judge every **new** item here, in your own context, before any fix is dispatched. Apply the rubric in [references/evaluation-rubric.md](evaluation-rubric.md) (read it now) across the whole batch at once. When the invocation carries a `trajectory`, apply the non-convergence test in [references/pipeline-mode.md](pipeline-mode.md) before dispatching anything — a demonstrated shared root is answered once, at the root, instead of fixing each instance.

Working over the full set lets you do what a per-thread subagent can't:
- **Dedup reads by file** — read a file once and judge all its threads together.
- **Cross-item reasoning** — cluster findings by root assumption; a source (often a bot) that's wrong in one place is suspect across its siblings; converging requests from independent reviewers are a strong fix signal.
- **Selective depth** — clear nits need only the comment plus the diff line; deep-read (callers, invariants, `git blame`/PR rationale for author intent) only where a finding is contestable or the code looks deliberate. That deep read on the contestable minority is what catches a confidently-wrong reviewer.

Produce a verdict per item and sort into three lists:

- **fix-list** — `fixed` / `fixed-differently`. These get dispatched to fixers in step 4. For each, note the file/location (and for outdated threads, the resolved location or anchor) and a one-line "what to change." **Class fix:** when the cross-item pass (rubric: "A validated finding can span sites this PR itself introduced") found equivalent same-invariant sites this PR touched, record them as **one** fix-list item that enumerates every concrete location (`file:line`) and lists every feedback ID it covers — one class item → one fixer (step 4), so the sites are edited coherently and every covered thread/comment is replied-to and resolved from that single result. Enumerate only sites whose treatment is unambiguous; a site needing its own judgment stays a separate item.
- **reply-list** — `replied` / `not-addressing` / `declined`. No code change. Compose the reply text now per the rubric (you have the evidence) and carry it to step 7.
- **human-list** — `needs-human`. Compose `decision_context` now; carry to steps 7 and 9.

Create a task list of all new items (e.g., `TaskCreate` in Claude Code, `update_plan` in Codex) tagged with their verdict, so progress is visible.

**At scale.** If the batch is large (many threads spanning many files) and judging them all inline would overflow your context, process the consolidation in groups (e.g., file-clustered groups of ~8-10 threads), emitting the three lists incrementally. Don't fan the judgment out to subagents to avoid this — batch it instead.

If the fix-list is empty (all verdicts are reply/needs-human), skip steps 4-6 and go to step 7.

## 4. Fix (PARALLEL — fix-list only)

Dispatch fixers **only** for fix-list items. Reply-list and human-list items never reach a subagent.

### Dispatch

Read [references/agents/pr-comment-resolver.md](agents/pr-comment-resolver.md) and spawn a generic subagent seeded with that fixer prompt for each fix-list item. Do not dispatch a standalone agent by type/name. The fixer is a pure executor: the validity judgment is already done, so it implements and returns — it does not re-judge worthwhileness.

Each fixer receives:
- The feedback_id (thread ID or comment ID) and feedback type.
- The file path and location fields: `line`, `originalLine`, `startLine`, `originalStartLine` (for outdated threads, the resolved location/anchor from step 3).
- The reviewer's comment text.
- Your step-3 note: what to change and why it was judged valid.
- The PR number.

For `pr_comment` / `review_body` fix-list items (no file/line), the fixer identifies the relevant files from the comment text and the PR diff.

**No subagent capability — apply the fixes yourself, sequentially.** When the harness exposes no way to dispatch (or a dispatch fails), work the fix-list in this context one item at a time, using the fixer prompt as your own instructions and producing the same per-item result. This is a supported path, not a degradation to disclose as lost coverage: the legitimacy judgment already happened centrally in step 3, and fixers only *implement* changes you approved, so running them here costs parallelism and context headroom — never correctness. Keep the dispatch path's discipline: one item at a time, re-read each file before editing it, and stop to re-evaluate if implementing surfaces a contradiction (the `blocked` handling applies unchanged).

This skill therefore does not depend on agent-tool authorization to complete a review. That is deliberate: it runs unattended under `ce-babysit-pr`, where a permission prompt would stall the whole loop, so its tool surface stays narrow and its fix path stays viable without dispatch.

### Fixer return format

- **verdict**: `fixed`, `fixed-differently`, or `blocked`
- **feedback_id**, **feedback_type**
- **reply_text**: markdown reply to post (quoting the relevant feedback) — omit for `blocked`
- **files_changed**: list of files modified (empty for `blocked`)
- **reason**: what was done, or the concrete contradiction for `blocked`

**Handling `blocked`.** A fixer returns `blocked` only when implementing surfaced a concrete contradiction its narrower view exposed (the change breaks a caller/test it can see, or the code isn't what the finding described). Re-evaluate it yourself with that evidence: either re-dispatch with a corrected instruction, or move it to the reply-list (`not-addressing`/`declined`) or human-list. Don't silently drop it.

### Batching and conflict avoidance

**Batching**: If the fix-list has 1-4 items, dispatch all in parallel. For 5+, batch in groups of 4.

**Conflict avoidance**: No two fixers that touch the same file run in parallel. You already know the target files from step 3 — serialize fixers that share a file (dispatch one, wait, then the next); non-overlapping items run in parallel. For a **class item**, feed the fixer its full enumerated location set and every covered feedback ID (not a single thread), and account for **all** of its sites in this check — a class fix touching files another fixer also touches must be serialized against every one of them. When one fixer handles multiple threads on the same file, it addresses them sequentially.

**Sequential fallback**: Platforms that do not support parallel dispatch run fixers sequentially.

Fixes can occasionally expand beyond their referenced file (e.g., renaming a method updates callers elsewhere). This is rare but can cause parallel fixers to collide. Step 5 (combined validation) catches test breakage; step 8 (verify) catches unresolved threads. If either surfaces inconsistent changes, re-run the affected fixers sequentially.

## 5. Validate Combined State

Aggregate `files_changed` across every fixer summary. If it's empty, skip steps 5 and 6 and proceed to step 7.

Fixers run only targeted tests on their own changes. This step runs the project's full validation **once** against the combined diff to catch cross-agent interactions that targeted runs can't see.

1. **Run the project's validation command** (test suite, type check, or whatever the project's active conventions specify). Run once, not per-agent.

2. **Green** -> proceed to step 6.

3. **Red, failures touch files fixers changed** -> one inline diagnose-and-fix pass. Re-run validation. If still red, escalate with a `needs-human` item containing the test output; do **not** commit.

4. **Red, failures touch only files no fixer changed** -> treat as pre-existing. Proceed to step 6, but add a footer to the commit message: `Note: pre-existing failure in <test> not addressed by this PR.`

Record the validation outcome (command run, pass/fail counts, any pre-existing failures noted) for the step 9 summary.

## 6. Commit and Push

1. Stage only files reported by fixers and commit with a message referencing the PR:

```bash
git add [files from fixer summaries]
git commit -m "Address PR review feedback (#PR_NUMBER)

- [list changes from fixer summaries]"
```

2. Push to remote:
```bash
git push
```

## 7. Reply and Resolve

After the push succeeds, post replies and resolve where applicable. The done condition for an ordinary review thread is one visible, submitted substantive reply plus authoritative resolution; satisfy each condition independently and never repeat a satisfied half. Post for every newly handled item: fix-list items use the fixer's `reply_text`; reply-list and human-list items use the reply text you composed in step 3. A **class item** carries multiple covered feedback IDs (`feedback_ids`/`feedback_types` from its fixer) — reply to and resolve *every* one, posting the shared `reply_text` on each thread, not just the first; a covered thread left unresolved re-actionizes in the next babysit loop. The mechanism depends on the feedback type.

### Reply format

All replies quote the relevant part of the original feedback for continuity — the specific sentence or passage, not the entire comment if it's long. The per-verdict templates are in [references/evaluation-rubric.md](evaluation-rubric.md) (skip verdicts) and [references/agents/pr-comment-resolver.md](agents/pr-comment-resolver.md) (`fixed` / `fixed-differently`).

For `needs-human` verdicts, post the natural-sounding reply but do NOT resolve the thread. Leave it open for human input.

### Review threads

For every calling mode, select the first unsatisfied completion condition before acting. A thread with no visible submitted substantive reply runs steps 0-4. A `resolution-pending` thread skips only step 1, uses its existing reply IDs for step 2, and runs steps 2-4; do not judge, fix, or post again. A `needs-human` thread stops after its visible submitted reply and remains unresolved.

0. **Verify the thread ID** before replying. GitHub Enterprise can return inconsistent node IDs for the same thread depending on the query path. Always confirm the ID from `get-pr-comments` resolves to the correct thread using [scripts/get-thread-for-comment](../scripts/get-thread-for-comment) with the comment's numeric URL ID. Extract the numeric comment ID from the comment URL (e.g. `discussion_r2589700` → `2589700`) for the `gh api` call; if the bundled script is missing, use `gh api` to inspect the review thread instead:
```bash
SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md>";
GH_HOST=<derived-host> GH_REPO=OWNER/REPO gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/comments/COMMENT_ID --jq .node_id
GH_HOST=<derived-host> bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/get-thread-for-comment" PR_NUMBER COMMENT_NODE_ID OWNER/REPO
```
The returned `id` is the authoritative thread ID for resolution, and `root_comment_id` is the numeric ID of the thread's first comment for the REST reply. If the thread ID differs from what `get-pr-comments` returned, use the one from this script.

1. **Reply directly to the root comment over REST** using [scripts/reply-to-pr-thread](../scripts/reply-to-pr-thread). If the bundled script is missing, use the same `POST repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/PR_NUMBER/comments/ROOT_COMMENT_ID/replies` endpoint. Do not substitute `addPullRequestReviewThreadReply`, `gh pr review`, or a `/reviews` POST: those operations participate in review-submission state, while a successful reply must be immediately submitted and visible.
Feed the body through a quoted heredoc, never `echo "..."` or `printf`. A reply is multi-line Markdown (a quote line, a blank line, then the response), and `echo` neither interprets `\n` nor survives a body composed with escape sequences — the reviewer then sees a single run-on line containing literal `\n` characters. The quoted delimiter (`<<'EOF'`) also stops the shell from expanding backticks, `$`, and `!` inside quoted code:
```bash
SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md>";
GH_HOST=<derived-host> bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/reply-to-pr-thread" PR_NUMBER ROOT_COMMENT_ID OWNER/REPO <<'EOF'
> the specific sentence being addressed from the reviewer's comment

Fixed in abc1234 — the lookup now null-checks before dereferencing.
EOF
```
The helper exits nonzero if a pending review is visible after the POST. Stop without resolving on that error; do not submit or discard the review. Check that the returned comment URL contains the correct `OWNER/REPO` and PR number before proceeding.

2. **Verify the REST-created reply is visible and submitted** before resolving. Take its numeric ID from the returned URL fragment (`#discussion_r2589700` → `2589700`) and read back what GitHub stored:
```bash
GH_HOST=<derived-host> GH_REPO=OWNER/REPO gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/comments/REPLY_COMMENT_ID --jq .body
GH_HOST=<derived-host> GH_REPO=OWNER/REPO gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/comments/REPLY_COMMENT_ID --jq '.pull_request_review_id // empty'
```
The first command prints the decoded body, which must show real line breaks. If instead it shows `\n` (or `\n\n`) as literal backslash-n characters inside one line, the body was posted escaped: **do not resolve the thread**. Fix it first by rewriting the body through a heredoc, then re-verify:
```bash
GH_HOST=<derived-host> GH_REPO=OWNER/REPO gh api --method PATCH repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/comments/REPLY_COMMENT_ID -f body="$(cat <<'EOF'
> the specific sentence being addressed from the reviewer's comment

Fixed in abc1234 — the lookup now null-checks before dereferencing.
EOF
)"
```
If the second command prints a review ID, fetch that review and require a state other than `PENDING`; a pending state means the reply is not submitted, regardless of the successful POST response:
```bash
GH_HOST=<derived-host> GH_REPO=OWNER/REPO gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/PR_NUMBER/reviews/REVIEW_ID --jq .state
```

3. **Re-fetch pending-review state after posting.** This closes the race after the initial fetch and detects a draft created during the reply loop:
```bash
SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md>";
GH_HOST=<derived-host> bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/get-pr-comments" PR_NUMBER OWNER/REPO | jq -r '.pending_review // empty'
```
If this prints an ID, stop without resolving any thread from this reply pass. Report the pending review, but do not submit or discard it.

4. **Resolve** using [scripts/resolve-pr-thread](../scripts/resolve-pr-thread) (if the bundled script is missing, resolve the thread with `gh api` if supported):
```bash
SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md>";
GH_HOST=<derived-host> bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/resolve-pr-thread" THREAD_ID
```

### PR comments and review bodies

These cannot be resolved via GitHub's API. Reply with a top-level PR comment referencing the original (pass `-R OWNER/REPO` — the parsed base repo — so a fork→upstream reply posts on the watched upstream PR, not the fork namespace):

```bash
GH_HOST=<derived-host> gh pr comment PR_NUMBER -R OWNER/REPO --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
> the specific sentence being addressed from the reviewer's comment

Fixed in abc1234 — the lookup now null-checks before dereferencing.
EOF
)"
```

The same escaping rule applies here: compose the body in a quoted heredoc so paragraph breaks are real newlines, and confirm the posted comment renders as Markdown rather than one line containing literal `\n`.

Include enough quoted context in the reply so the reader can follow which comment is being addressed without scrolling.

## 8. Verify

Re-fetch feedback to confirm resolution:

```bash
SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the ce-resolve-pr-feedback SKILL.md>";
GH_HOST=<derived-host> bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/get-pr-comments" PR_NUMBER OWNER/REPO
```

The `review_threads` array should be empty (except `needs-human` items).

**If new threads remain**, check the iteration count -- counting rounds **for this PR**, not just this invocation. An orchestrator such as `ce-babysit-pr` re-invokes this skill fresh each round, so a per-invocation counter never trips; count instead the earlier review-fix commits already on the branch (`git log <base>..HEAD` subjects that address review feedback) plus this run's own cycles.

- **First or second fix-verify cycle**: Repeat from step 2 for the remaining threads.

- **After the second fix-verify cycle** (3rd pass would begin): Stop looping. Surface remaining issues to the user with context about the recurring pattern: "Multiple rounds of feedback on [area/theme] suggest a deeper issue. Here's what we've fixed so far and what keeps appearing." Use the same `needs-human` escalation pattern -- leave threads open and present the pattern for the user to decide.

PR comments and review bodies have no resolve mechanism, so they will still appear in the output. Verify they were replied to by checking the PR conversation.

## 9. Summary

Present a concise summary of all work done. Group by verdict, one line per item describing *what was done* not just *where*. This is the primary output the user sees — and the place where the gate's decisions become visible: the user can see exactly what was fixed, what was skipped, and why.

Format:

```
Resolved N of M new items on PR #NUMBER:

Fixed (count): [brief description of each fix]
Fixed differently (count): [what was changed and why the approach differed]
Replied (count): [what questions were answered]
Not addressing (count): [what was skipped and the evidence]
Declined (count): [what was declined and the harm cited]

Validation: [one line -- e.g., "bun test passed (893/893)" or "bun test passed with pre-existing failure in X noted"; omit when no code changes were committed]
```

If any item is `needs-human`, append a decisions section. These are rare but high-signal. Each carries the typed residual composed in step 3: quoted feedback, investigation, the reason autonomous action is unsafe or ambiguous, concrete options with tradeoffs, a recommendation if any, and links to every still-open thread it covers.

Present the `decision_context` directly -- it's already structured for the user to decide quickly:

```
## Needs your decision

1. [decision_context.quoted_feedback]
   - Investigated: [decision_context.investigation]
   - Decision needed: [decision_context.decision_reason]
   - Options: [decision_context.options, preserving each option and tradeoff]
   - Recommendation: [decision_context.recommendation, when non-null]
   - Open threads: [thread_urls]
```

The `needs-human` threads already have a natural-sounding acknowledgment reply posted and remain open on the PR.

If there are **pending decisions from a previous run** (threads detected in step 2 as already responded to but still unresolved), surface them after the new work:

```
Still pending from a previous run (count):

1. [Thread path:line] -- [brief description of what's pending]
   Previous reply: [link to the existing reply]
   [Re-present the decision options if available, or summarize what was asked]
```

If a blocking question tool is available, use it to ask about all pending decisions (both new `needs-human` and previous-run pending) together. If there are only pending decisions and no new work was done, the summary is just the pending items.

Use the host's blocking question tool already in the current tool list (match by capability, not by a host-specific name). Presence in the current tool list is proof the tool exists; never call a user-facing question tool to discover whether it exists. If a matching tool is listed but unloaded, use the host's tool-discovery primitive to load that capability — do not search for another host's tool name. Use it to present the decisions and wait for the user's response. After they decide, process the remaining items: fix the code, compose the reply, post it, and resolve the thread.

Fall back to presenting the decisions in user-visible summary output and waiting in conversation only when no blocking tool exists in the harness or the call errors (e.g., Codex edit modes) — not because a schema load is required. Never silently skip. If the user doesn't respond, the items remain open on the PR for later handling.