- Specification with user stories and requirements- Spec research on GitHub API behavior and constraints- Code research documenting implementation patterns- Implementation plan with 4 phases- Workflow context and prompt templates

…plan[Reply To Review Comments] Planning: Add reply_to_review_comment tool

Implements the core MCP tool function that enables AI agents to replydirectly to pull request review comment threads. The tool uses theGitHub REST API's CreateCommentInReplyTo method to create threadedreplies that maintain conversation context at specific code locations.Key features:- Required parameters: owner, repo, pull_number, comment_id, body- Uses RequiredBigInt for comment_id (int64 type)- Returns MinimalResponse with reply ID and URL- Follows established error handling patterns- Marked as write tool (ReadOnlyHint: false)Part of Phase 1: Core Tool Implementation

…phase1[Reply To Review Comments] Phase 1: Core Tool Implementation

- Add ReplyToReviewComment to AddWriteTools section in pkg/github/tools.go- Position after AddCommentToPendingReview to group review-related write tools- Tool is now discoverable through the MCP server's tool listing- Uses REST client (getClient parameter) consistent with tool implementationPhase 2 complete: All automated verification passed (build, lint).

Add comment explaining that the 'body' variable is intentionally shadowedwhen reading the HTTP response body in the error path. This follows theestablished pattern used throughout pullrequests.go (e.g., CreatePullRequest).

Replace shadowing pattern with clearer variable name 'responseBody' inerror handling path. While shadowing is used elsewhere in this file,using distinct names improves code clarity for readers.

…phase2[Reply To Review Comments] Phase 2: Toolset Integration

- Add unit tests with toolsnap validation in pkg/github/pullrequests_test.go- Implement table-driven behavioral tests covering:  * Successful reply creation (201 status)  * Error scenarios: 404 Not Found, 403 Forbidden, 422 Unprocessable Entity  * Parameter validation for all required fields (owner, repo, pull_number, comment_id, body)  * Invalid comment_id type handling- Generate toolsnap schema snapshot in pkg/github/__toolsnaps__/reply_to_review_comment.snap- Add end-to-end test in e2e/e2e_test.go following established patterns:  * Creates test repository, branch, commit, and pull request  * Adds review comment via pending review workflow  * Tests reply_to_review_comment tool with actual GitHub API  * Verifies reply appears in review comments list with correct body text  * Validates MinimalResponse structure (id and url fields)All tests pass. Linting clean.

E2E tests have high maintenance costs and require PAT tokens with write access.The comprehensive unit tests with mocked HTTP responses already providesufficient coverage of success and error scenarios.

…phase3[Reply To Review Comments] Implementation Phase 3: Testing

- Generated README.md documentation for reply_to_review_comment tool- Tool documented with all parameters (owner, repo, pull_number, comment_id, body)- Verified all validation checks pass:  * Linting: 0 issues  * Full test suite: All tests passed  * License compliance: No issues (no new dependencies)- Updated ImplementationPlan.md with Phase 4 completion summary- Ready for Implementation Review Agent to review and open Phase 4 PR

…phase4[Reply To Review Comments] Implementation Phase 4: Documentation & Validation

- Created detailed Docs.md with architecture, design decisions, and usage- Includes user guide with basic and advanced usage examples- Documents error handling, edge cases, and limitations- Provides comprehensive testing guide for manual verification- Covers migration path and compatibility notes- README.md already updated from Phase 4 auto-generation

…docs[Reply To Review Comments] Documentation

CopilotAI left a comment