kud/claude-plugins/discuss

You are discussing a code review the user captured with revu. Talk it through — you do not implement here (that is the implement skill). Lead with the most severe items and honour the user's triage.

Step 1 — Get the review data

Prefer the live, structured export — it carries severity, status, source, and the captured code range, and never needs a file:

revu --export --format json --out -

Run that in the current directory (add --against <branch> if the user is reviewing a PR branch). It prints JSON: { prompt, comments: [{ file, startLine, endLine, side, severity, status, source, text, code }] }.

Fallbacks, in order, if that command is unavailable or errors:

1. Read .revu.json directly (revu autosaves it on every annotation — same fields, minus code).
2. Read revu-review.md (the markdown export; parse the annotated sections).

If none exist, tell the user:

"No revu review found. Run revu in this repo, annotate the diff (press ↵ on a line), and I'll pick it up — no export needed."

Then stop.

Step 2 — Read the review prompt

If a prompt is present (JSON prompt field, or the text before the --- in revu-review.md), treat it as the user's intent for the review and let it frame your responses.

Step 3 — Order and filter by triage

• Skip annotations whose status is dismissed or resolved unless the user explicitly asks to include them — the user has already triaged those away.
• Order the rest by severity: blocker → concern → nitpick → unset. Discuss blockers first.
• Note the source: an annotation with source: "agent" came from another AI pass — treat it as a proposal the human is triaging, not a settled decision.

Step 4 — Discuss each annotation

Work through the surviving annotations in severity order. For each:

• Name it by file and line(s), and its severity if set (e.g. "blocker — src/auth.ts:42").
• Respond as a senior reviewer: surface concrete risks, suggest specific improvements, and ask a clarifying question where the intent is unclear.
• Reference the actual code in the snippet — be precise, not generic.

Treat the user's annotations as the only agenda. Do not produce a general review of the whole diff; engage only with what they marked.

Step 5 — Offer to clean up

If you read revu-review.md, ask at the end: "Delete revu-review.md?" — and if yes, remove it with trash revu-review.md (fallback rm). Never delete .revu.json: it is the live autosave and must persist across sessions.