Add commands for reviewing pull requests and staged changes by pontemonti · Pull Request #135 · microsoft/Agent365-python

pontemonti · 2026-01-25T02:40:14Z

No description provided.

Copilot

Pull request overview

This pull request transitions the code review workflow from an agent-based approach to a command-based approach. The PR deletes the code-review-manager agent (225 lines) and adds three new command files that provide structured workflows for reviewing pull requests, reviewing staged changes, and resolving review comments.

Changes:

Removed the code-review-manager agent file which coordinated multi-dimensional code reviews
Added /review-pr command for reviewing pull requests using multi-agent review process
Added /review-staged command for reviewing uncommitted staged changes before committing
Added /resolve-review command for automatically resolving agent-resolvable review comments using git worktrees

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

File	Description
`.claude/agents/code-review-manager.md`	Deleted agent that coordinated code reviews - functionality replaced by new commands
`.claude/commands/review-pr.md`	New command for reviewing PRs with parallel architecture, code quality, and test coverage agents
`.claude/commands/review-staged.md`	New command for pre-commit review of staged changes
`.claude/commands/resolve-review.md`	New command for automatically fixing agent-resolvable issues using git worktrees

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

.claude/agents/code-review-manager.md:1

The deletion of the code-review-manager agent creates breaking references in other agent files. Several agents still invoke code-review-manager as a subagent:

pr-comment-resolver.md (lines 44-54, 100, 130, 139) - references launching code-review-manager for verification
task-implementer.md (lines 17, 65-72, 132, 158) - requires code-review-manager approval before completion
code-reviewer.md (line 223) - references receiving file lists from code-review-manager
test-coverage-reviewer.md (line 17) - references receiving file lists from code-review-manager

Additionally, the new command files review-pr.md and review-staged.md still reference "code-review-manager" as the reviewer name in their metadata sections (lines 82 and 81 respectively).

Either these references need to be updated to use the new command-based approach, or the code-review-manager agent should be retained alongside the new commands to support existing workflows.

.claude/commands/review-pr.md

.claude/commands/review-staged.md

.claude/commands/review-pr.md

.claude/commands/review-staged.md

…and examples for posting comments and resolving reviews

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

.claude/commands/resolve-review.md

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

* Initial plan * Add support for custom MCP server URLs * Add comprehensive tests for custom MCP server URL support * Remove unnecessary hasattr check in exception handler * Simplify custom URL checks by removing redundant strip calls * Improve exception handling and clarify test comments * Refactor to consistently store URLs in the url field * Use 'url' field consistently in both manifest and gateway responses * Refactor gateway parsing to match manifest logic and improve variable naming * Fix formatting: remove extra blank line in test * Rename custom_url to endpoint for better clarity * Remove fallback logic and use config.url directly in all tool registration services * Remove redundant null check for server_url in Agent Framework service * Use 'or' operator for cleaner fallback logic in server_name assignment * Add clarifying comment for server_name fallback logic * Fix undefined variable reference in log statement * Move server_name assignment outside try block to ensure it's always available in exception handler * Clarify comment for server_name fallback logic * Add server_name fallback logic in OpenAI MCP tool registration service * Improve variable naming consistency and add server_name fallback in Semantic Kernel service * Fix inconsistent server_name usage in Semantic Kernel service * Add server_name fallback logic in configuration service URL construction * Run ruff formatter to fix formatting issues * Update tests/tooling/test_mcp_server_configuration.py * Update tests/tooling/test_mcp_server_configuration.py * Update tests/tooling/test_mcp_server_configuration.py --------- Co-authored-by: Copilot <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: pontemonti <7850950+pontemonti@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 13 out of 13 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

…bility

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

.claude/commands/review-pr.md

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

.claude/commands/resolve-review.md

.claude/commands/review-pr.md

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

…d add PowerShell command for Windows

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

.claude/agents/code-review-manager.md:1

The code-review-manager agent is being deleted, but it is still referenced by multiple other agents in the codebase:

.claude/agents/code-reviewer.md:223 - References receiving file list from code-review-manager
.claude/agents/pr-comment-resolver.md - Multiple references (lines 3, 44, 45, 51, 54, 100, 130, 139) to launching and verifying with code-review-manager
.claude/agents/task-implementer.md - Multiple references (lines 17, 65, 66, 70, 71, 72, 132, 158) to code-review-manager verification

These references will become broken after this deletion. The other agents should be updated to use the new /review-pr and /review-staged commands instead of referencing the code-review-manager agent, or the deletion should be coordinated with updates to those files.

.claude/commands/review-staged.md

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

.claude/commands/resolve-review.md

Copilot · 2026-01-26T22:33:49Z

.claude/commands/resolve-review.md

+   git push -u origin <FIX_BRANCH_NAME>
+   ```
+
+2. Create a PR to merge fixes into the original PR branch:
+   ```bash
+   gh pr create --base <ORIGINAL_PR_HEAD_BRANCH> --head <FIX_BRANCH_NAME> --title "fix: address code review comments for PR #<PR_NUMBER>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'


The gh pr create invocation uses <ORIGINAL_PR_HEAD_BRANCH> (the PR’s head branch name from gh pr view) directly as a shell argument without quoting or validation, so a malicious PR from a branch with a name containing shell metacharacters (e.g., bugfix; rm -rf /) can inject arbitrary shell commands when /resolve-review runs this step. This creates a remote code execution risk on the developer’s machine, because the shell will treat characters like ; in the branch name as command separators before invoking gh. Mitigate this by validating/sanitizing the branch name from GitHub (restrict to a safe pattern) and passing it to gh pr create as a properly-escaped argument instead of interpolating it unquoted into a command string.

Suggested change

git push -u origin <FIX_BRANCH_NAME>

```

2. Create a PR to merge fixes into the original PR branch:

```bash

gh pr create --base <ORIGINAL_PR_HEAD_BRANCH> --head <FIX_BRANCH_NAME> --title "fix: address code review comments for PR #<PR_NUMBER>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'

git push -u origin "$FIX_BRANCH_NAME"

Create a PR to merge fixes into the original PR branch:
# Validate that branch names are safe (alphanumerics, dot, slash, dash, underscore) case "$ORIGINAL_PR_HEAD_BRANCH" in (*[!A-Za-z0-9._/-]*|'') echo "Error: ORIGINAL_PR_HEAD_BRANCH contains unsafe characters: $ORIGINAL_PR_HEAD_BRANCH" >&2 exit 1 ;; esac case "$FIX_BRANCH_NAME" in (*[!A-Za-z0-9._/-]*|'') echo "Error: FIX_BRANCH_NAME contains unsafe characters: $FIX_BRANCH_NAME" >&2 exit 1 ;; esac gh pr create --base "$ORIGINAL_PR_HEAD_BRANCH" --head "$FIX_BRANCH_NAME" --title "fix: address code review comments for PR #<PR_NUMBER>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'

@copilot - please address this issue

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot · 2026-02-06T17:14:37Z

@pontemonti I've opened a new pull request, #165, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 9 comments.

Copilot · 2026-02-06T17:18:01Z

.claude/commands/review-pr.md

+
+3. **IMPORTANT**: Save the diff output - you will need it to:
+   - Include relevant diff context snippets in each finding
+   - Determine the exact **diff line numbers** for inline comments (line numbers as they appear in the diff, not file line numbers)


The instructions say to use “diff line numbers … as they appear in the diff, not file line numbers”, but later the “Diff Line” field is defined as the absolute line number in the target file computed from the hunk header. These are different concepts and will lead to incorrect inline comment placement. Please make the terminology consistent (and align it with the format required by /post-review-comments).

Suggested change

- Determine the exact **diff line numbers** for inline comments (line numbers as they appear in the diff, not file line numbers)

- Determine the exact **target file line numbers** for inline comments (absolute line numbers in the target file, computed from the diff hunk headers, as required by `/post-review-comments`)

Copilot · 2026-02-06T17:18:02Z

.claude/commands/review-pr.md

+### Step 2: Launch Parallel Code Reviews
+
+Launch THREE sub-agents in parallel using the Task tool. Each agent MUST receive:
+- The PR number: $ARGUMENTS
+- The list of changed files (so they stay scoped to PR files only)
+- The PR URL for generating clickable links
+
+**CRITICAL**: You MUST launch all three agents in a SINGLE message with THREE parallel Task tool calls:


This command coordinates architecture/code/test subagents, and the PR also removes .claude/agents/code-review-manager.md. Other agents in .claude/agents/ still reference code-review-manager, so removing it will break those workflows unless those references are updated or a compatibility stub is kept.

Copilot · 2026-02-06T17:18:02Z

.claude/commands/review-staged.md

+
+3. **IMPORTANT**: Save the diff output - you will need it to:
+   - Include relevant diff context snippets in each finding
+   - Determine the exact **diff line numbers** for inline comments (line numbers as they appear in the diff, not file line numbers)


Same inconsistency as /review-pr: here it says “diff line numbers … as they appear in the diff, not file line numbers”, but later the Inline Comment Fields define “Diff Line” as the absolute line number in the target file. Please standardize this to avoid producing unusable line info.

Suggested change

- Determine the exact **diff line numbers** for inline comments (line numbers as they appear in the diff, not file line numbers)

- Determine the exact **Diff Line** values for inline comments (absolute line numbers in the target file; use the diff hunks to map changes to their file line numbers)

Copilot · 2026-02-06T17:18:02Z

.claude/commands/review-staged.md

+| **Diff Line** | The **absolute line number** in the target file where the comment should appear. For multi-line issues, use the **last line** of the relevant code block. Compute this from the diff hunk header plus the line's position within the hunk. | `47` |
+| **Diff Side** | `RIGHT` for added/modified lines (`+`), `LEFT` for removed lines (`-`) | `RIGHT` |
+
+**Note:** To post these findings as inline PR comments later, use `/review-pr` after creating the PR, or create a PR and use `/post-review-comments` with the staged review file (it will attempt to map the findings).


This note claims /post-review-comments can be used with a staged review file, but /post-review-comments currently requires “PR Number:” in the review metadata and exits for staged reviews. Either add a staged→PR mapping flow (e.g., prompt for PR number) or update this note to match actual behavior.

Suggested change

**Note:** To post these findings as inline PR comments later, use `/review-pr` after creating the PR, or create a PR and use `/post-review-comments` with the staged review file (it will attempt to map the findings).

**Note:** To post these findings as inline PR comments later, re-run `/review-pr` after creating the PR. `/post-review-comments` only works with review files that include PR metadata (for example, review files generated by `/review-pr`), and it does not support staged-only review files.

Copilot · 2026-02-06T17:18:02Z

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

@@ -0,0 +1,470 @@
+# Post Review Comments to GitHub
+
+Post code review findings from a review file (generated by `/review-pr` or `/review-staged`) as comments on the associated GitHub pull request.


The header says this works with review files from /review-staged, but Step 1 validation requires “PR Number:” and exits for staged reviews. This is contradictory; either support staged review files (e.g., prompt for PR number / infer PR) or remove /review-staged from the supported inputs in the introduction.

Suggested change

Post code review findings from a review file (generated by `/review-pr` or `/review-staged`) as comments on the associated GitHub pull request.

Post code review findings from a review file (generated by `/review-pr`) as comments on the associated GitHub pull request.

Copilot · 2026-02-06T17:18:03Z

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

+2. **Check if version supports multi-account switching** (requires v2.40.0+):
+   - If version is **2.40.0 or higher**: Continue to step 3.2
+   - If version is **below 2.40.0**: Attempt automatic upgrade
+
+3. **Attempt automatic upgrade** (if version < 2.40.0):
+
+   Inform the user you're attempting to upgrade:
+   ```
+   GitHub CLI version <current_version> detected. Version 2.40.0+ is recommended.
+   Attempting automatic upgrade...
+   ```
+
+   Try upgrade commands based on the detected platform:


The flow attempts to automatically upgrade GitHub CLI using package managers (often requiring sudo). That’s a potentially disruptive system change for an automated command. Consider requiring explicit user confirmation before running upgrade/install commands, and otherwise exit with manual instructions.

Copilot · 2026-02-06T17:18:03Z

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

+<description>
+
+#### Diff Context
+```python


In the fallback PR-comment template, the “Diff Context” block is fenced as python, but the review files specify diff snippets using diff fences (with +/- lines). Using the wrong fence reduces readability and syntax highlighting; consider changing it to a diff code fence.

Suggested change

```python

```diff

Copilot · 2026-02-06T17:18:03Z

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

+- `lines`: From the table (file line numbers for display)
+- `diff_line`: From the table (line number in the diff for inline comments)
+- `diff_side`: From the table (`RIGHT` or `LEFT`)
+- `severity`: From the table (critical/high/medium/low)


diff_line is described here as “line number in the diff for inline comments”, but the posting step uses the GitHub API line field, which expects a line number on the LEFT/RIGHT file side (as also described in /review-pr’s “absolute line number” section). Please clarify whether this is an absolute file line number or a diff-position, and keep it consistent across commands.

Copilot · 2026-02-06T17:18:03Z

.claude/commands/resolve-review.md

+   git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
+   fix(<scope>): address review comment CRM-XXX
+
+   <Brief description of the fix>
+
+   Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
+   EOF
+   )"


The heredoc examples for git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF' ... EOF)" are indented, which will embed leading spaces into the generated commit message/body when copy-pasted. Consider showing the heredoc content without indentation (or use a technique that strips indentation) so the resulting commit message is formatted as intended.

* Initial plan * Add shell injection protection for branch names in resolve-review command Co-authored-by: pontemonti <7850950+pontemonti@users.noreply.github.com> --------- Co-authored-by: copilot-swe-agent[bot] <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: pontemonti <7850950+pontemonti@users.noreply.github.com>

Add commands for reviewing pull requests and staged changes

431d49b

pontemonti requested a review from a team as a code owner January 25, 2026 02:40

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 25, 2026 02:40

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of pontemonti January 25, 2026 02:40 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

.claude/commands/review-pr.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

.claude/commands/review-staged.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

.claude/commands/review-pr.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

.claude/commands/review-staged.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Fix markdown formatting in review commands for consistency

f21b473

pontemonti requested review from mrunalhirve128 and rahuldevikar761 January 26, 2026 16:49

rahuldevikar761 previously approved these changes Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

Enhance documentation for review commands: add detailed instructions …

e37c244

…and examples for posting comments and resolving reviews

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 26, 2026 17:23

pontemonti dismissed rahuldevikar761’s stale review via e37c244 January 26, 2026 17:23

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of pontemonti January 26, 2026 17:23 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

.claude/commands/resolve-review.md Show resolved Hide resolved

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md Show resolved Hide resolved

Update .claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

cd8c760

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 26, 2026 17:29

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of pontemonti January 26, 2026 17:30 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

pontemonti and others added 2 commits January 26, 2026 10:27

Merge branch 'main' into users/johanb/CodeReviewSkill

89f3f6c

Enhance comment formatting in post-review-comments.md for better visi…

418d375

…bility

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 26, 2026 18:32

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of pontemonti January 26, 2026 18:32 View session

pontemonti enabled auto-merge (squash) January 26, 2026 18:36

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md Show resolved Hide resolved

Johan Broberg and others added 2 commits January 26, 2026 10:45

Fix code block formatting in post-review-comments.md for consistency

8fd098e

Merge branch 'main' into users/johanb/CodeReviewSkill

c47b1ce

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 26, 2026 18:51

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of pontemonti January 26, 2026 18:52 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

Update .claude/commands/review-pr.md

afd04b5

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 26, 2026 19:56

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of pontemonti January 26, 2026 19:56 View session

pontemonti and others added 2 commits January 26, 2026 11:57

Update .claude/commands/review-pr.md

144391f

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Update .claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

a36a323

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

Johan Broberg and others added 2 commits January 26, 2026 12:10

Enhance documentation for GitHub CLI upgrade instructions on Linux an…

8904029

…d add PowerShell command for Windows

Merge branch 'main' into users/johanb/CodeReviewSkill

a7b3bc6

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 26, 2026 20:50

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of pontemonti January 26, 2026 20:51 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

.claude/commands/post-review-comments.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update .claude/commands/post-review-comments.md

05c0cdf

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 26, 2026 21:11

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of pontemonti January 26, 2026 21:12 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

.claude/commands/review-staged.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update .claude/commands/review-staged.md

0010e82

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 26, 2026 22:29

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of pontemonti January 26, 2026 22:29 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

mrunalhirve128 previously approved these changes Jan 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

Apply suggestion from @Copilot

76ceea4

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

pontemonti dismissed mrunalhirve128’s stale review via 76ceea4 February 6, 2026 17:12

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings February 6, 2026 17:12

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of pontemonti February 6, 2026 17:13 View session

Copilot AI mentioned this pull request Feb 6, 2026

Fix shell injection vulnerability in /resolve-review command #165

Merged

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

	- Determine the exact diff line numbers for inline comments (line numbers as they appear in the diff, not file line numbers)
	- Determine the exact target file line numbers for inline comments (absolute line numbers in the target file, computed from the diff hunk headers, as required by `/post-review-comments`)

	- Determine the exact diff line numbers for inline comments (line numbers as they appear in the diff, not file line numbers)
	- Determine the exact Diff Line values for inline comments (absolute line numbers in the target file; use the diff hunks to map changes to their file line numbers)

	Note: To post these findings as inline PR comments later, use `/review-pr` after creating the PR, or create a PR and use `/post-review-comments` with the staged review file (it will attempt to map the findings).
	Note: To post these findings as inline PR comments later, re-run `/review-pr` after creating the PR. `/post-review-comments` only works with review files that include PR metadata (for example, review files generated by `/review-pr`), and it does not support staged-only review files.

		@@ -0,0 +1,470 @@
		# Post Review Comments to GitHub

		Post code review findings from a review file (generated by `/review-pr` or `/review-staged`) as comments on the associated GitHub pull request.

Conversation

pontemonti commented Jan 25, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pontemonti Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment