Files
shockbot/mcp/comment.ts
T
Colin McDonnell e4e93ea6d3 PR summary as agent-edited tmpfile snapshot (#568)
* PR summary as agent-edited tmpfile snapshot

Replaces the comment-based PR summary path (and the in-progress
update_pr_summary tool from #534) with a snapshot file the agent edits in
place during Review / IncrementalReview / pr-summary Task runs.

The server seeds the tmpfile with the previous snapshot (incremental) or a
stable scaffold (first run), exposes the path via select_mode, and reads it
back at end-of-run to persist to WorkflowRun.summarySnapshot and (when the
prSummaryComment toggle is on) splice into the PR description body.

Why a tmpfile rather than a tool call: incremental snapshot edits are
output-token-cheap when the agent uses native file-editing tools, and
range-diff cleanly across runs because section headings are stable. The
agent never has to regurgitate the full snapshot to update it.

Gating: snapshot generation is opt-in via either prSummaryComment="enabled"
(splice into PR body) or prReReview="enabled" (snapshot feeds future
incremental review runs as context). Users who disable both pay nothing
end-to-end — no seeding, DB write, or body splice.

Behavior changes:
- Drop the Summarize mode and the Summary comment type entirely; the
  rolling summary is no longer a separate run shape.
- pull_request_synchronize with re-review off and summary on still
  dispatches a silent pr-summary Task, but it edits the snapshot file
  instead of posting a fresh comment.
- /api/repo/.../pr/.../summary-comment now returns
  { snapshot: string | null } from the DB instead of fetching a comment via
  GraphQL. URL kept stable so deployed older actions degrade gracefully.
- summaryCommentNodeId is retained on WorkflowRun for legacy data and a
  future backfill of pre-snapshot comment-based summaries.

Supersedes #534. The commit-tool/sub-agent direction in that PR is
abandoned in favor of this file-based shape.

* address review pass #1: synchronize fallback, splice idempotency, docs

* address review pass #2: in-flight skip should not race summary fallback

* address review pass #3: signal-handler flush, doc clarifications

* address review pass #4: in-flight persist promise + bounded body-splice timeout

* address review pass #5: defensive catch on persist worker, doc nit

* add summary-stale post-run gate

When generateSummary is set, we capture the bytes of the seeded snapshot
file and pass them to the agent's post-run loop alongside the file path.
After each agent attempt, the loop diffs the current file against the
seed; if they're byte-identical the agent never touched it, and we nudge
once via a resume turn (similar to the dirty-tree gate, but soft and
fire-once so smaller models that legitimately decide no edit is warranted
don't burn the retry budget).

Mostly defends against forgetful smaller models on the Review path —
their mode prompt asks them to edit the snapshot file, but the
multi-step instruction can fall through when the diff is large.

* trigger: retry vercel preview build

* fix(action): drop unused re-export that pulled node:fs/promises into next bundle

action/internal/index.ts was re-exporting DEFAULT_PR_SUMMARY_INSTRUCTIONS
from action/utils/prSummary.ts, but nothing in the next.js app imports
it. prSummary.ts uses node:fs/promises, and pullfrog/internal is aliased
into the next bundle by next.config.ts, which made turbopack try to
resolve node:fs/promises in client chunks and fail with:

  the chunking context (unknown) does not support external modules
  (request: node:fs/promises)

drop the re-export — selectMode.ts (the only real consumer) already
imports it directly from action/utils/prSummary.ts.

* firewall PR summary snapshot from user instructions; resurrect rich format for Review

The agent-internal snapshot (the markdown file the agent edits in place across
runs) is exclusively durable context for future agent runs — user-supplied
summarization instructions warp it and degrade that context. Drop the
prSummaryCommentInstructions read path end-to-end:

- handleWebhook: stop reading prSummaryCommentInstructions, stop passing
  prSummaryInstructions through dispatch options
- action payload + ToolState + selectMode addendum: drop the instructions
  appendix; the snapshot prompt is fixed, not user-shaped
- TriggersSettings: drop the InstructionsEditor for prSummaryCommentInstructions
- prSummary.ts: reframe DEFAULT_PR_SUMMARY_INSTRUCTIONS as agent-targeted
  (durable context, not human-facing prose)

Prisma columns (prSummaryComment, prSummaryCommentInstructions) and the
matching zod schema entry stay for graceful retreat.

Separately, resurrect PR_SUMMARY_FORMAT (deleted along with the Summarize mode
in the original PR) and wire it into Review mode only. Initial PR reviews now
include a structured summary section in the review body using the rich format
(TL;DR, key changes, ## sections with before/after, file-link trails).
IncrementalReview keeps its existing terser bullet-list shape since re-review
bodies are deltas, not introductions. The user-facing review summary and the
agent-internal snapshot are deliberately separate artifacts with separate
prompts and zero shared content.

* address review comments: prompt self-consistency + stale-doc cleanup

PR 568 self-review (4232488109) flagged a self-contradiction the firewall
commit introduced and three stale doc references that survived.

- action/modes.ts: Review-mode step 2's trivial-PR shortcut said `submit
  "Reviewed — no issues found." per step 5`, but step 5's rewrite removed
  exactly that preamble. Aligned both: trivial PRs and no-actionable-issues
  PRs now produce a body that opens with "No new issues found." followed by
  the PR summary, so the user gets the headline up front and still sees what
  was reviewed.
- docs/pr-reviews.mdx: dropped the "customize the summary style with Summary
  instructions in the console" sentence (the editor was removed in the
  firewall commit). Replaced with a note that the snapshot uses Pullfrog's
  built-in format and is not user-customizable.
- wiki/prompt.md, wiki/modes.md: rewrote the snapshot-prompt entries to
  reflect the firewall — DEFAULT_PR_SUMMARY_INSTRUCTIONS is the entire
  prompt, prSummaryCommentInstructions is no longer wired in.

* drop orphaned prSummaryCommentInstructions column

Prod audit (455 repos): 5 non-null rows on a single account, all containing the
literal placeholder text from the InstructionsEditor we removed in the firewall
commit. No account has an intentional preference set, so silent-ignore (the
keep-for-retreat option) costs us nothing meaningful while leaving an orphan
column in the schema. Drop it.

- prisma/schema.prisma: remove the column
- prisma/migrations/20260506000000_drop_pr_summary_comment_instructions:
  ALTER TABLE ... DROP COLUMN
- utils/schemas/triggers.ts: drop the matching zod entry

* drop body splicing; snapshot is internal-only

User-visible PR summarization continues to ship in Review and IncrementalReview
review bodies (which already render PR_SUMMARY_FORMAT and "Reviewed changes"
respectively). The snapshot tmpfile is now purely durable cross-run agent
context — seed, edit-in-place, save to DB, feed the next run. Massive
simplification: the body splice mechanics, the two-toggle gating matrix, the
summaryHandlingCovered race tracking, and the synchronize summary-only Task
fallback all go away.

Code:
- prSummary.ts: drop splice/strip/marker code (`splicePrSummary`,
  `stripExistingSummaryBlock`, `buildSummaryBlock`, `extractPrSummary`,
  PULLFROG_SUMMARY_START/END). keep scaffold, instructions, seed/read.
- main.ts: rename persistAndPostSummary -> persistSummary; collapse to a
  single DB PATCH. drop pulls.get/pulls.update, drop AbortSignal timeout,
  drop in-flight promise machinery, drop prSummaryToBody plumbing.
- ToolState: add summarySeed (replaces local var in main.ts so persist can
  compare). drop prSummaryToBody and summaryPersistInFlight.
- persistSummary now compares against the seed and skips the DB write
  with a warning when unchanged — saving the seed verbatim is either a
  no-op or persists the placeholder scaffold, neither useful.
- postRun.ts: when summary-stale is the only failing gate and the resume
  turn itself fails, restore the pre-resume successful result and break.
  symmetric with the existing reflection-failure preservation. summary-stale
  can no longer flip a successful run to failed.

Webhook:
- pull_request_opened: generateSummary follows prReReview only (the snapshot
  has no consumer when re-review is off).
- pull_request_synchronize: collapses to "if prReReview enabled, dispatch
  IncrementalReview". the summaryHandlingCovered flag, the same-SHA/in-flight
  coordination it was protecting, and the summary-only Task fallback all
  delete cleanly.

UI / config:
- drop SummarizePRsTrigger (the toggle gated body splice; with that gone
  it has no behavior). drop sidebar entry, console import, Text icon import.
- drop prSummaryComment from triggers zod schema, prisma schema, preview
  settings script.

Migration: squash the two existing migrations into one timestamped
20260507000000_pr_summary_snapshot covering all three column changes
(add summarySnapshot on workflow_runs, drop prSummaryCommentInstructions
and prSummaryComment on repos). repo convention is one migration per PR.

Action: bump 0.0.203 -> 0.0.205 (payload contract changed: prSummaryToBody
removed; main is at 0.0.204).

Out-of-diff cleanup:
- review.ts:190 + review.test.ts:651 — "Reviewed — no issues found." ->
  "No new issues found." to match the canonical body in modes.ts.

Verified: pnpm typecheck clean, pnpm lint clean, postRun + review tests
pass, dev DB reset against production and the squashed migration applied
cleanly (summarySnapshot present, prSummaryComment / prSummaryCommentInstructions
both gone).

* re-orient snapshot toward functional summary; drop prior-review-feedback section

Empirical audit on preview-568 PR #5 showed the snapshot IS load-bearing
for the orchestrator: lens-dispatch prompts on incremental runs carried
forward context from the snapshot's risk register (e.g. "the JSDoc
explicitly scopes to code points — do not flag grapheme-cluster issues"
on the surrogate-pair fix run, "consistency with native padStart" on the
padStart-added run). The orchestrator was reading the snapshot, reasoning
about it, and using it to anti-prime / focus subagents — exactly the
high-leverage path. My earlier "snapshot is write-only" claim was wrong.

The shape, however, was steering it toward review-history-log instead of
functional summary. This commit re-orients:

- prSummary.ts: replace the four-section scaffold (~580 chars of placeholder
  italics under "What this PR does / Key changes / Risk / Reviewed in prior
  runs") with a minimal seed (~150 chars: just a header + a one-line
  comment about what the file is for). different PRs warrant different
  organization; forcing a refactor and a feature into the same template
  is procrustean. minimal seed also makes the unchanged-from-seed gate
  in persistSummary more sensitive.

- selectMode.ts addendum: rewrite around three principles. (1) the snapshot
  is a FUNCTIONAL summary of what the PR does and the risks it carries,
  not a chronological review log — commit history can already be
  reconstructed from list_pull_request_reviews. (2) the orchestrator should
  USE the snapshot during triage and dispatch — concrete example given of
  carrying snapshot context into subagent lens prompts. (3) structure is
  the agent's call; stable headings make snapshots range-diff cleanly when
  they fit, but riff when they don't.

- modes.ts IncrementalReview: drop the "Prior review feedback" checklist
  from the user-facing review body (step 6b gone, step 7 ELSE IFs cleaned
  up). It duplicated content that's already covered by the Reviewed-changes
  bullets and tracked durably in the snapshot for the next agent run; in
  the user-facing body it was noise. step 3 still fetches prior reviews
  but its role is now just filtering aggregation in step 5, not rendering.

- AGENTS.md: codify "no follow-ups" rule. when an issue is identified
  during code review, fix it in this PR — PR scope does not constrain
  quality. follow-up TODOs are forbidden as a substitute for doing the
  work now.

Empirical evidence supporting the re-orientation:

- Run 25568912293 (PR#5 incr1, surrogate-pair fix): orchestrator's
  correctness lens dispatch said "Do NOT flag grapheme-cluster issues
  — the JSDoc scopes to code points." The grapheme-cluster framing was
  not in the diff; it was downstream of the snapshot's prior risk-section
  framing of truncate's contract. Snapshot influencing dispatch.

- Run 25569054779 (PR#5 incr2, padStart added): orchestrator's correctness
  lens dispatch enumerated edge cases including "consistency with native
  String.prototype.padStart contract" and "fill = multi-code-point string
  (e.g. emoji)". Both threads carried over from the snapshot's prior
  truncate code-point-vs-code-unit discussion. Snapshot informing the
  shape of what was looked for.

The cost of maintaining the snapshot (~800 tokens, ~$0.005/run) is
trivially affordable when it materially improves orchestrator triage
on the 1-5 lenses dispatched per review.
2026-05-08 19:28:24 +00:00

425 lines
15 KiB
TypeScript

import { type } from "arktype";
import { getApiUrl } from "../utils/apiUrl.ts";
import { buildPullfrogFooter, stripExistingFooter } from "../utils/buildPullfrogFooter.ts";
import { log } from "../utils/cli.ts";
import { fixDoubleEscapedString } from "../utils/fixDoubleEscapedString.ts";
import { patchWorkflowRunFields } from "../utils/patchWorkflowRunFields.ts";
import {
createLeapingProgressComment,
deleteProgressCommentApi,
updateProgressComment,
} from "../utils/progressComment.ts";
import type { ToolContext } from "./server.ts";
import { execute, tool } from "./shared.ts";
// re-export for backward compat with anything importing the leaping helpers from mcp/comment
export {
isLeapingIntoActionCommentBody,
LEAPING_INTO_ACTION_PREFIX,
} from "../utils/leapingComment.ts";
function buildCommentFooter(ctx: ToolContext, customParts?: string[]): string {
const runId = ctx.runId;
return buildPullfrogFooter({
triggeredBy: true,
workflowRun:
runId !== undefined
? {
owner: ctx.repo.owner,
repo: ctx.repo.name,
runId,
jobId: ctx.jobId,
}
: undefined,
customParts,
model: ctx.toolState.model,
});
}
function buildImplementPlanLink(ctx: ToolContext, issueNumber: number, commentId: number): string {
const apiUrl = getApiUrl();
return `[Implement plan ➔](${apiUrl}/trigger/${ctx.repo.owner}/${ctx.repo.name}/${issueNumber}?action=implement&comment_id=${commentId})`;
}
export function addFooter(ctx: ToolContext, body: string): string {
if (/<br\s*\/?>[ \t]*\n(?!\s*\n)/i.test(body)) {
throw new Error(
"body contains <br/> followed by a non-blank line, which breaks GitHub markdown rendering. always add a blank line after <br/> tags."
);
}
const bodyWithoutFooter = stripExistingFooter(fixDoubleEscapedString(body));
const footer = buildCommentFooter(ctx);
return `${bodyWithoutFooter}${footer}`;
}
export const Comment = type({
issueNumber: type.number.describe("the issue number to comment on"),
body: type.string.describe("the comment body content"),
type: type
.enumerated("Plan", "Comment")
.describe("Plan: record as the plan for this run. Comment: regular comment (default).")
.optional(),
});
export function CreateCommentTool(ctx: ToolContext) {
return tool({
name: "create_issue_comment",
description:
"Create a comment on a GitHub issue or PR. For progress/plan updates on the current run use report_progress instead. Use type: 'Plan' for plan comments.",
parameters: Comment,
execute: execute(async ({ issueNumber, body, type: commentType }) => {
const bodyWithFooter = addFooter(ctx, body);
const result = await ctx.octokit.rest.issues.createComment({
owner: ctx.repo.owner,
repo: ctx.repo.name,
issue_number: issueNumber,
body: bodyWithFooter,
});
ctx.toolState.wasUpdated = true;
if (commentType === "Plan") {
if (result.data.node_id) {
await patchWorkflowRunFields(ctx, { planCommentNodeId: result.data.node_id });
}
// add "Implement plan" link (needs comment ID, so create-then-update)
const customParts = [buildImplementPlanLink(ctx, issueNumber, result.data.id)];
const footer = buildCommentFooter(ctx, customParts);
const bodyWithPlanLink = `${stripExistingFooter(body)}${footer}`;
const updateResult = await ctx.octokit.rest.issues.updateComment({
owner: ctx.repo.owner,
repo: ctx.repo.name,
comment_id: result.data.id,
body: bodyWithPlanLink,
});
return {
success: true,
commentId: updateResult.data.id,
url: updateResult.data.html_url,
body: updateResult.data.body,
};
}
return {
success: true,
commentId: result.data.id,
url: result.data.html_url,
body: result.data.body,
};
}),
});
}
export const EditComment = type({
commentId: type.number.describe("the ID of the comment to edit"),
body: type.string.describe("the new comment body content"),
});
export function EditCommentTool(ctx: ToolContext) {
return tool({
name: "edit_issue_comment",
description: "Edit a GitHub issue comment by its ID",
parameters: EditComment,
execute: execute(async ({ commentId, body }) => {
const bodyWithFooter = addFooter(ctx, body);
const result = await ctx.octokit.rest.issues.updateComment({
owner: ctx.repo.owner,
repo: ctx.repo.name,
comment_id: commentId,
body: bodyWithFooter,
});
return {
success: true,
commentId: result.data.id,
url: result.data.html_url,
body: result.data.body,
updatedAt: result.data.updated_at,
};
}),
});
}
export const ReportProgress = type({
body: type.string.describe("the progress update content to share"),
"target_plan_comment?": type("boolean").describe(
"when true, update the existing plan comment (from select_mode lookup) instead of the progress comment; use when editing an existing plan"
),
});
/**
* Report progress to a GitHub comment.
*
* progressComment has three states:
* - undefined: no comment yet — will create one if an issue/PR target exists
* - object: active comment — will update it in place via the right REST endpoint for its type
* - null: deliberately deleted (e.g. after submitting a PR review) — skips silently
*
* The body is always tracked in lastProgressBody for the job summary regardless of comment state.
*
* The "existing plan comment" path always targets a top-level issue comment (plan comments are
* created by create_issue_comment with type:"Plan", never as review-thread replies).
*/
export async function reportProgress(
ctx: ToolContext,
params: { body: string; target_plan_comment?: boolean }
): Promise<{
commentId?: number;
url?: string;
body: string;
action: "created" | "updated" | "skipped";
}> {
const { body, target_plan_comment } = params;
// always track the body for job summary
ctx.toolState.lastProgressBody = body;
// silent events (e.g., auto-label, pr-summary Task) should never create or update progress comments.
// the body is still tracked above for the GitHub Actions job summary.
if (ctx.payload.event.silent) {
return { body, action: "skipped" };
}
const issueNumber = ctx.payload.event.issue_number ?? ctx.toolState.issueNumber;
const isPlanMode = ctx.toolState.selectedMode === "Plan";
const apiCtx = { octokit: ctx.octokit, owner: ctx.repo.owner, repo: ctx.repo.name };
// when editing existing plan: update the plan comment from tool state (set by select_mode)
if (target_plan_comment === true && ctx.toolState.existingPlanCommentId === undefined) {
log.warning("target_plan_comment requested but no existingPlanCommentId in tool state");
}
if (target_plan_comment === true && ctx.toolState.existingPlanCommentId !== undefined) {
const commentId = ctx.toolState.existingPlanCommentId;
const customParts =
issueNumber !== undefined ? [buildImplementPlanLink(ctx, issueNumber, commentId)] : undefined;
const bodyWithoutFooter = stripExistingFooter(body);
const footer = buildCommentFooter(ctx, customParts);
const bodyWithFooter = `${bodyWithoutFooter}${footer}`;
const result = await updateProgressComment(
apiCtx,
{ id: commentId, type: "issue" },
bodyWithFooter
);
ctx.toolState.wasUpdated = true;
if (isPlanMode && result.node_id) {
await patchWorkflowRunFields(ctx, { planCommentNodeId: result.node_id });
}
return {
commentId: result.id,
url: result.html_url,
body: result.body || "",
action: "updated",
};
}
const existingComment = ctx.toolState.progressComment;
// if we already have a progress comment, update it
if (existingComment) {
const customParts =
isPlanMode && issueNumber !== undefined
? [buildImplementPlanLink(ctx, issueNumber, existingComment.id)]
: undefined;
const bodyWithoutFooter = stripExistingFooter(body);
const footer = buildCommentFooter(ctx, customParts);
const bodyWithFooter = `${bodyWithoutFooter}${footer}`;
const result = await updateProgressComment(apiCtx, existingComment, bodyWithFooter);
ctx.toolState.wasUpdated = true;
if (isPlanMode && result.node_id) {
await patchWorkflowRunFields(ctx, { planCommentNodeId: result.node_id });
}
return {
commentId: result.id,
url: result.html_url,
body: result.body || "",
action: "updated",
};
}
// null = progress comment was deleted by stranded-comment cleanup in main.ts
if (existingComment === null) {
return { body, action: "skipped" };
}
// no existing comment - need an issue/PR to create one on
// use fallback chain: dynamically set context > event payload
if (issueNumber === undefined) {
// no-op: no comment target (e.g., workflow_dispatch events)
// body is already tracked for job summary
return { body, action: "skipped" };
}
// for new comments, we need to create first, then update with Plan link if in Plan mode
// self-created progress comments are always top-level issue comments — review-reply
// progress comments only originate from the dispatch path and arrive pre-created.
const initialBody = addFooter(ctx, body);
const created = await createLeapingProgressComment(
apiCtx,
{ kind: "issue", issueNumber },
initialBody
);
ctx.toolState.progressComment = created.comment;
ctx.toolState.wasUpdated = true;
// if Plan mode, update the comment to add the "Implement plan" link
if (isPlanMode) {
const customParts = [buildImplementPlanLink(ctx, issueNumber, created.comment.id)];
const bodyWithoutFooter = stripExistingFooter(body);
const footer = buildCommentFooter(ctx, customParts);
const bodyWithPlanLink = `${bodyWithoutFooter}${footer}`;
const updateResult = await updateProgressComment(apiCtx, created.comment, bodyWithPlanLink);
if (updateResult.node_id) {
await patchWorkflowRunFields(ctx, { planCommentNodeId: updateResult.node_id });
}
return {
commentId: updateResult.id,
url: updateResult.html_url,
body: updateResult.body || "",
action: "created",
};
}
return {
commentId: created.comment.id,
url: created.html_url,
body: created.body || "",
action: "created",
};
}
export function ReportProgressTool(ctx: ToolContext) {
return tool({
name: "report_progress",
description:
"Share progress on the associated GitHub issue/PR. The first call creates a comment; subsequent calls update it in place. Call this at the end of every run with a brief final summary (1-3 sentences) unless the mode guidance instructs otherwise. The current task list is automatically appended in a collapsible section — do not restate individual steps.",
parameters: ReportProgress,
execute: execute(async (params) => {
let body = params.body;
// for non-plan calls: stop auto-updates, wait for in-flight writes to settle,
// then append completed task list collapsible
if (!params.target_plan_comment && ctx.toolState.todoTracker) {
ctx.toolState.todoTracker.cancel();
await ctx.toolState.todoTracker.settled();
const collapsible = ctx.toolState.todoTracker.renderCollapsible({
completeInProgress: true,
});
if (collapsible) {
body = `${body}\n\n${collapsible}`;
}
}
const reportParams: { body: string; target_plan_comment?: boolean } = { body };
if (params.target_plan_comment !== undefined) {
reportParams.target_plan_comment = params.target_plan_comment;
}
const result = await reportProgress(ctx, reportParams);
if (result.action === "skipped") {
return {
success: true,
message:
"progress recorded (no GitHub comment created - this may occur for workflow_dispatch events or when there is no associated issue/PR)",
};
}
if (!params.target_plan_comment) {
ctx.toolState.finalSummaryWritten = true;
}
return {
success: true,
...result,
};
}),
});
}
/**
* Delete the progress comment if it exists.
* Used by main.ts for stranded-comment cleanup (orphaned "Leaping into action" or
* checklist left by the todo tracker when the agent didn't call report_progress).
* Sets progressComment to null so subsequent report_progress calls are no-ops.
*/
export async function deleteProgressComment(ctx: ToolContext): Promise<boolean> {
const existing = ctx.toolState.progressComment;
if (!existing) {
return false;
}
try {
await deleteProgressCommentApi(
{ octokit: ctx.octokit, owner: ctx.repo.owner, repo: ctx.repo.name },
existing
);
} catch (error) {
// ignore 404 - comment already deleted
if (error instanceof Error && error.message.includes("Not Found")) {
// comment already deleted, continue
} else {
throw error;
}
}
// set to null (not undefined) so report_progress skips instead of creating a new comment
ctx.toolState.progressComment = null;
return true;
}
export const ReplyToReviewComment = type({
pull_number: type.number.describe("the pull request number"),
comment_id: type.number.describe("the ID of the review comment to reply to"),
body: type.string.describe(
"extremely brief reply (1 sentence max) explaining what was fixed, e.g. 'Fixed by renaming to X' or 'Added null check'"
),
});
export function ReplyToReviewCommentTool(ctx: ToolContext) {
return tool({
name: "reply_to_review_comment",
description:
"Reply to a PR review comment thread (NOT issue comments — this only works for inline review comments on PR diffs). Call this for EACH comment you address in AddressReviews mode. Keep replies extremely brief (1 sentence max).",
parameters: ReplyToReviewComment,
execute: execute(async ({ pull_number, comment_id, body }) => {
const bodyWithFooter = addFooter(ctx, body);
const result = await ctx.octokit.rest.pulls.createReplyForReviewComment({
owner: ctx.repo.owner,
repo: ctx.repo.name,
pull_number,
comment_id,
body: bodyWithFooter,
});
// mark progress as updated so error reporting + run-result handling know
// a substantive write happened (used by reportErrorToComment / handleAgentResult)
ctx.toolState.wasUpdated = true;
return {
success: true,
commentId: result.data.id,
url: result.data.html_url,
body: result.data.body,
in_reply_to_id: result.data.in_reply_to_id,
};
}, "reply_to_review_comment"),
});
}