Sentry-io Bot PR Comment Reviewer

This skill helps you systematically analyze, validate, and fix issues identified by the sentry-io automated code review bot in GitHub Pull Requests.

When to Use This Skill

Invoke this skill when:

• User asks to "review sentry comments" or "check sentry-io bot feedback"
• User mentions a PR with automated review comments
• User wants to validate or implement fixes from automated review tools
• User asks about a specific sentry-io bot comment
• User asks to check recent PRs for sentry comments

Workflow

Phase 0: Determine Target PR(s)

If PR number is provided:

• Proceed directly to Phase 1 with that PR number

If NO PR number is provided:

1. List Recent PRs

   gh pr list --limit 10 --json number,title,author,updatedAt,headRefName
   

2. Check Each PR for Sentry Comments For the most recent PRs (up to 5), check for sentry-io bot comments:

   gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments
   

   Filter for comments from sentry-io[bot]

3. Present Options to User If multiple PRs have sentry comments:

   Found sentry-io bot comments on multiple recent PRs:
   - PR #42: "Fix authentication flow" (3 sentry comments)
   - PR #38: "Update build script" (1 sentry comment)
   
   Which PR would you like me to review? Or should I review all of them?
   

4. Default Behavior If only one PR has sentry comments, automatically proceed with that PR. If no recent PRs have sentry comments, inform the user.

Phase 1: Fetch and Parse Comments

1. Get PR Comments

   gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments
   

   Look for comments from user sentry-io[bot] (login: sentry-io[bot])

2. Parse Comment Structure Sentry-io bot comments typically include:

   • Summary: Brief description of the issue
   • Description: Detailed explanation of the problem
   • Suggested fix: Concrete recommendation
   • Severity: Float value (0.0-1.0) indicating criticality
   • Confidence: Float value (0.0-1.0) indicating certainty
   • File path: Location in the PR diff
   • Line number: Specific line being flagged

3. Organize by Priority Sort comments by:

   • Severity × Confidence (highest first)
   • Breaking issues before warnings
   • Blocking issues (CI failures) before improvements

Phase 2: Validate the Issue

For each comment, systematically verify:

1. Understand the Context

   • Read the relevant file sections using the Read tool
   • Check surrounding code for context
   • Review the PR diff to understand what changed

2. Verify the Problem

   • Does the issue actually exist in the current code?
   • Is the bot's analysis correct?
   • Check file paths and line numbers are accurate

3. Assess Impact

   • Severity >= 0.8: Critical - likely blocks functionality
   • Severity 0.5-0.7: Medium - causes issues but not blocking
   • Severity < 0.5: Low - minor improvements or nitpicks
   • Confidence >= 0.9: Very likely correct
   • Confidence 0.7-0.8: Probably correct, verify carefully
   • Confidence < 0.7: May be false positive, investigate thoroughly

4. Risk Matrix

   High Severity × High Confidence = FIX IMMEDIATELY
   High Severity × Low Confidence  = INVESTIGATE THOROUGHLY
   Low Severity × High Confidence  = FIX IF TIME PERMITS
   Low Severity × Low Confidence   = LIKELY IGNORE
   

Phase 3: Test the Analysis

Before implementing fixes, validate the bot's claim:

1. Path Resolution Issues

   • Verify file paths exist
   • Check for typos in paths or variable names
   • Confirm line numbers match current code

2. Logic Errors

   • Trace the execution flow
   • Check for edge cases mentioned
   • Look for similar patterns elsewhere in codebase

3. Build/CI Issues

   • Review CI workflow files
   • Check build scripts
   • Verify environment configurations

4. Create a Reproduction If possible, write a test case or scenario that demonstrates the issue

Phase 4: Implement the Fix

When you've validated the issue is real:

1. Checkout PR Branch

   git fetch origin pull/{pr_number}/head:temp-branch-name
   git checkout temp-branch-name
   

2. Apply the Fix

   • Use Edit tool for targeted changes
   • Follow the suggested fix if it's correct
   • Improve upon the suggestion if needed
   • Maintain code style consistency

3. Verify the Fix

   • Re-read the modified file
   • Check that the change addresses the root cause
   • Ensure no new issues were introduced
   • Run relevant tests if applicable

4. Commit the Change

   git add <files>
   git commit -m "fix: address sentry-io bot comment - <brief description>
   
   <detailed explanation of what was fixed>
   
   Resolves issue identified by sentry-io bot.
   Severity: <severity>, Confidence: <confidence>
   
   🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
   
   Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>"
   

5. Push to PR Branch

   git push origin <branch-name>
   

Phase 5: Report Findings

Provide a structured summary:

## Sentry-io Bot Comment Review

### Comment Analysis
- **Location**: file_path:line_number
- **Issue**: <brief description>
- **Severity**: X.X (Critical/Medium/Low)
- **Confidence**: X.X (High/Medium/Low)

### Validation Result
✅ VALID / ❌ FALSE POSITIVE / ⚠️ PARTIALLY VALID

**Analysis**: <your assessment>

### Action Taken
✅ FIXED / ⏭️ SKIPPED / 🔍 NEEDS INVESTIGATION

**Details**: <what you did or why you skipped>

### Impact
<explain what would have happened without the fix>

Best Practices

DO:

• ✅ Always verify the bot's analysis before implementing
• ✅ Check severity AND confidence scores together
• ✅ Read surrounding code for context
• ✅ Test fixes when possible
• ✅ Provide detailed commit messages
• ✅ Reference the bot comment in your fix
• ✅ Switch back to original branch after pushing fixes

DON'T:

• ❌ Blindly implement suggestions without validation
• ❌ Fix low-confidence issues without investigation
• ❌ Ignore high-severity warnings
• ❌ Make unrelated changes in the same commit
• ❌ Push directly to main/master
• ❌ Forget to switch branches after fixing

Common Sentry-io Bot Issue Types

1. Path Resolution Errors

Pattern: Build scripts move files to wrong locations Example: mv file.tgz ../../wrong/path/ Validation: Trace the path from the command's working directory

2. Missing Error Handling

Pattern: Functions that can throw but aren't wrapped in try/catch Validation: Check if calling code handles errors

3. Race Conditions

Pattern: Async operations without proper awaits Validation: Trace async/await chains

4. Type Mismatches

Pattern: TypeScript/type errors in builds Validation: Check type definitions and usages

5. Configuration Issues

Pattern: Missing or incorrect config files Validation: Check if config is read by the application

6. Security Vulnerabilities

Pattern: Exposed secrets, SQL injection, XSS Validation: ALWAYS FIX - verify the vulnerability exists

Handling False Positives

If you determine a comment is a false positive:

1. Document Why

   • Explain what the bot missed
   • Show why the code is actually correct
   • Provide evidence (logs, test results, etc.)

2. Add a Comment to PR

   gh pr comment {pr_number} --body "Sentry-io bot comment at file:line appears to be a false positive because..."
   

3. Consider Improving the Code Even if not a bug, unclear code led to the false positive Consider refactoring for clarity

Quick Reference

Fetch PR comments: gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments Get PR diff: gh pr diff {pr_number} Checkout PR: git fetch origin pull/{pr}/head:branch && git checkout branch Push fix: git push origin {branch-name} Switch back: git checkout main

Example Workflow

# 1. Fetch comments
gh api repos/codyde/sentryvibe/pulls/38/comments > comments.json

# 2. Analyze each comment
# (use Read tool to view code, validate issues)

# 3. Checkout PR branch
git fetch origin pull/38/head:fix-branch
git checkout fix-branch

# 4. Apply fix
# (use Edit tool)

# 5. Commit and push
git add .
git commit -m "fix: correct path in build script

Fixes path resolution issue identified by sentry-io bot.
..."
git push origin fix-branch

# 6. Return to main
git checkout main

Success Criteria

A successful sentry-reviewer session:

• ✅ All comments analyzed and categorized
• ✅ Critical issues (severity >= 0.8) addressed or documented
• ✅ Fixes validated before committing
• ✅ Clear commit messages explain the changes
• ✅ PR updated with fixes
• ✅ Summary report provided to user