sbusso/claudeclaw/qodo-pr-resolver

Qodo PR Resolver

Fetch Qodo review issues for your current branch's PR/MR, fix them interactively or in batch, and reply to each inline comment with the decision. Supports GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, and Azure DevOps.

Prerequisites

Required Tools:

• Git - For branch operations
• Git Provider CLI - One of: gh (GitHub), glab (GitLab), bb (Bitbucket), or az (Azure DevOps)

Installation and authentication details: See providers.md for provider-specific setup instructions.

Required Context:

• Must be in a git repository
• Repository must be hosted on a supported git provider (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, or Azure DevOps)
• Current branch must have an open PR/MR
• PR/MR must have been reviewed by Qodo (pr-agent-pro bot, qodo-merge[bot], etc.)

Quick Check:

git --version                                    # Check git installed
git remote get-url origin                        # Identify git provider

See providers.md for provider-specific verification commands.

Understanding Qodo Reviews

Qodo (formerly Codium AI) is an AI-powered code review tool that analyzes PRs/MRs with compliance checks, bug detection, and code quality suggestions.

Bot Identifiers

Look for comments from: `pr-agent-pro`, `pr-agent-pro-staging`, `qodo-merge[bot]`, `qodo-ai[bot]`

Review Comment Types

1. PR Compliance Guide 🔍 - Security/ticket/custom compliance with 🟢/🟡/🔴/⚪ indicators
2. PR Code Suggestions ✨ - Categorized improvements with importance ratings
3. Code Review by Qodo - Structured issues with 🐞/📘/📎 sections and agent prompts (most detailed)

Instructions

When the user asks for a code review, to see Qodo issues, or fix Qodo comments:

Step 0: Check code push status

Check for uncommitted changes, unpushed commits, and get the current branch.

Scenario A: Uncommitted changes exist

• Inform: "⚠️ You have uncommitted changes. These won't be included in the Qodo review."
• Ask: "Would you like to commit and push them first?"
• If yes: Wait for user action, then proceed to Step 1
• If no: Warn "Proceeding with review of pushed code only" and continue to Step 1

Scenario B: Unpushed commits exist

(no uncommitted changes)

• Inform: "⚠️ You have N unpushed commits. Qodo hasn't reviewed them yet."
• Ask: "Would you like to push them now?"
• If yes: Execute git push, inform "Pushed! Qodo will review shortly. Please wait ~5 minutes then run this skill again."
• Exit skill (don't proceed - Qodo needs time to review)
• If no: Warn "Proceeding with existing PR review" and continue to Step 1

Scenario C: Everything pushed

(both uncommitted changes and unpushed commits are empty)

• Proceed to Step 1

Step 1: Detect git provider

Detect git provider from the remote URL (git remote get-url origin).

See providers.md for provider detection patterns.

Step 2: Find the open PR/MR

Find the open PR/MR for this branch using the provider's CLI.

See providers.md § Find Open PR/MR for provider-specific commands.

Step 3: Get Qodo review comments

Get the Qodo review comments using the provider's CLI.

Qodo typically posts both a summary comment (PR-level, containing all issues) and inline review comments (one per issue, attached to specific lines of code). You must fetch both.

See providers.md § Fetch Review Comments for provider-specific commands.

Look for comments where the author is "qodo-merge[bot]", "pr-agent-pro", "pr-agent-pro-staging" or similar Qodo bot name.

Step 3a: Check if review is still in progress

• If any comment contains "Come back again in a few minutes" or "An AI review agent is analysing this pull request", the review is still running
• In this case, inform the user: "⏳ Qodo review is still in progress. Please wait a few minutes and try again."
• Exit early - don't try to parse incomplete reviews

Step 3b: Deduplicate issues

Deduplicate issues across summary and inline comments:

• Qodo posts each issue in two places: once in the summary comment (PR-level) and once as an inline review comment (attached to the specific code line). These will share the same issue title.
• Qodo may also post multiple summary comments (Compliance Guide, Code Suggestions, Code Review, etc.) where issues can overlap with slightly different wording.
• Deduplicate by matching on issue title (primary key - the same title means the same issue):
• If an issue appears in both the summary comment and as an inline comment, merge them into a single issue
• Prefer the inline comment for file location (it has the exact line context)
• Prefer the summary comment for severity, type, and agent prompt (it is more detailed)
• IMPORTANT: Preserve each issue's inline review comment ID — you will need it later (Step 8) to reply directly to that comment with the decision
• Also deduplicate across multiple summary comments by location (file path + line numbers) as a secondary key
• If the same issue appears in multiple places, combine the agent prompts

Step 4: Parse and display the issues

• Extract the review body/comments from Qodo's review
• Parse out individual issues/suggestions
• IMPORTANT: Preserve Qodo's exact issue titles verbatim — do not rename, paraphrase, or summarize them. Use the title exactly as Qodo wrote it.
• IMPORTANT: Preserve Qodo's original ordering — display issues in the same order Qodo listed them. Qodo already orders by severity.
• Extract location, issue description, and suggested fix
• Extract the agent prompt from Qodo's suggestion (the description of what needs to be fixed)

Severity mapping

Derive severity from Qodo's action level and position:

1. Action level determines severity range:

• "Action required" issues → Can only be 🔴 CRITICAL or 🟠 HIGH
• "Review recommended" / "Remediation recommended" issues → Can only be 🟡 MEDIUM or ⚪ LOW
• "Other" / "Advisory comments" issues → Always ⚪ LOW (lowest priority)

1. Qodo's position within each action level determines the specific severity:

• Group issues by action level ("Action required" vs "Review recommended" vs "Other")
• Within "Action required" and "Review recommended" groups: earlier positions → higher severity, later positions → lower severity
• Split point: roughly first half of each group gets the higher severity, second half gets the lower
• All "Other" issues are treated as ⚪ LOW regardless of position

Example: 7 "Action required" issues would be split as:

• Issues 1-3: 🔴 CRITICAL
• Issues 4-7: 🟠 HIGH
• Result: No MEDIUM or LOW issues (because there are no "Review recommended" or "Other" issues)

Example: 5 "Action required" + 3 "Review recommended" + 2 "Other" issues would be split as:

• Issues 1-2 or 1-3: 🔴 CRITICAL (first ~half of "Action required")
• Issues 3-5 or 4-5: 🟠 HIGH (second ~half of "Action required")
• Issues 6-7: 🟡 MEDIUM (first ~half of "Review recommended")
• Issue 8: ⚪ LOW (second ~half of "Review recommended")
• Issues 9-10: ⚪ LOW (all "Other" issues)

Action guidelines:

• 🔴 CRITICAL / 🟠 HIGH ("Action required"): Always "Fix"
• 🟡 MEDIUM ("Review recommended"): Usually "Fix", can "Defer" if low impact
• ⚪ LOW ("Review recommended" or "Other"): Can be "Defer" unless quick to fix; "Other" issues are lowest priority

Output format

Display as a markdown table in Qodo's exact original ordering (do NOT reorder by severity - Qodo's order IS the severity ranking):

Qodo Issues for PR #123: [PR Title]
 
| # | Severity | Issue Title | Issue Details | Type | Action |
|---|----------|-------------|---------------|------|--------|
| 1 | 🔴 CRITICAL | Insecure authentication check | • **Location:** src/auth/service.py:42<br><br>• **Issue:** Authorization logic is inverted | 🐞 Bug ⛨ Security | Fix |
| 2 | 🔴 CRITICAL | Missing input validation | • **Location:** src/api/handlers.py:156<br><br>• **Issue:** User input not sanitized before database query | 📘 Rule violation ⛯ Reliability | Fix |
| 3 | 🟠 HIGH | Database query not awaited | • **Location:** src/db/repository.py:89<br><br>• **Issue:** Async call missing await keyword | 🐞 Bug ✓ Correctness | Fix |

Step 5: Ask user for fix preference

After displaying the table, ask the user how they want to proceed using AskUserQuestion:

Options:

• 🔍 "Review each issue" - Review and approve/defer each issue individually (recommended for careful review)
• ⚡ "Auto-fix all" - Automatically apply all fixes marked as "Fix" without individual approval (faster, but less control)
• ❌ "Cancel" - Exit without making changes

Based on the user's choice:

• If "Review each issue": Proceed to Step 6 (manual review)
• If "Auto-fix all": Skip to Step 7 (auto-fix mode - apply all "Fix" issues automatically using Qodo's agent prompts)
• If "Cancel": Exit the skill

Step 6: Review and fix issues (manual mode)

If "Review each issue" was selected:

• For each issue marked as "Fix" (starting with CRITICAL):
• Read the relevant file(s) to understand the current code
• Implement the fix by executing the Qodo agent prompt as a direct instruction. The agent prompt is the fix specification — follow it literally, do not reinterpret or improvise a different solution. Only deviate if the prompt is clearly outdated relative to the current code (e.g. references lines that no longer exist).
• Calculate the proposed fix in memory (DO NOT use Edit or Write tool yet)
• Present the fix and ask for approval in a SINGLE step:

1. Show a brief header with issue title and location
2. Show Qodo's agent prompt in full so the user can verify the fix matches it
3. Display current code snippet
4. Display proposed change as markdown diff
5. Immediately use AskUserQuestion with these options:

• ✅ "Apply fix" - Apply the proposed change
• ⏭️ "Defer" - Skip this issue (will prompt for reason)
• 🔧 "Modify" - User wants to adjust the fix first
• WAIT for user's choice via AskUserQuestion
• If "Apply fix" selected:
• Apply change using Edit tool (or Write if creating new file)
• Reply to the Qodo inline comment with the decision (see Step 8 for inline reply commands)
• Git commit the fix: git add <modified-files> && git commit -m "fix: <issue title>"
• Confirm: "✅ Fix applied, commented, and committed!"
• Mark issue as completed
• If "Defer" selected:
• Ask for deferral reason using AskUserQuestion
• Reply to the Qodo inline comment with the deferral (see Step 8 for inline reply commands)
• Record reason and move to next issue
• If "Modify" selected:
• Inform user they can make changes manually
• Move to next issue
• Continue until all "Fix" issues are addressed or the user decides to stop

Important notes

Single-step approval with AskUserQuestion:

• NO native Edit UI (no persistent permissions possible)
• Each fix requires explicit approval via custom question
• Clearer options, no risk of accidental auto-approval

CRITICAL: Single validation only - do NOT show the diff separately and then ask. Combine the diff display and the question into ONE message. The user should see: brief context → current code → proposed diff → AskUserQuestion, all at once.

Example: Show location, Qodo's guidance, current code, proposed diff, then AskUserQuestion with options (✅ Apply fix / ⏭️ Defer / 🔧 Modify). Wait for user choice, apply via Edit tool if approved.

Step 7: Auto-fix mode

If "Auto-fix all" was selected: