Review Comments Resolver

Review Comments Resolver Skill

A document with forty comments induces either capitulation (accept-all, the doc becomes committee mush) or avoidance (the comments age until the doc ships around them). Resolution is triage: most comments are mechanical (accept in batch, thank in aggregate), some are substantive-and-right (accept with the change named), some deserve push-back (drafted politely, decided by the doc's owner), and a few contradict each other — those aren't the author's to split; they get reconciled by naming the conflict to its parties. Every comment ends closed, and the doc stays the author's.

What This Skill Produces

• The triage table — every comment sorted: accept-mechanical / accept-substantive / push-back / conflict / out-of-scope
• The batch plan — mechanical fixes applied in one pass, resolved with one courtesy note
• The push-back replies — drafted: the reviewer's point honored, the decision explained, the owner's call made
• The conflict reconciliations — contradicting reviewers named to each other with the author's recommendation
• The closure sweep — nothing left dangling; the resolved-vs-declined summary if the doc's approver wants it

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:

• The comments and the doc — the actual comment set; triage reads them, not a summary of them
• The authority map — whose comments are directives (the approver), whose are advice (peers), whose are taste — the same words resolve differently by author; "consider rewording" from the VP and from a peer are different speech acts
• The doc's non-negotiables — what the author is defending (the recommendation, the scope, the tone) — push-back needs a spine to push from
• The deadline — a closing date makes "let's discuss" comments convert to decisions instead of orbit

Framework: The Resolution Rules

1. Triage before touching: read all comments first, sort into the five bins — resolving in document-order mixes typo fixes with strategy debates and exhausts the author by page three. The bins get processed cheapest-first: mechanical batch, then substantive accepts, then push-backs, then conflicts.
2. Mechanical means batch: typos, clarity nits, formatting — apply all, resolve all, one aggregate thank-you. Individually replying "good catch!" forty times is a day lost to etiquette.
3. Push-back is a reply, not a silence: declining a comment requires saying so — "Kept as-is: the recommendation stays unhedged because [reason]; happy to discuss" — because silently-unaddressed comments return in the next review round with reinforcements. The author owns the call on advice-comments; directive-comments that the author disagrees with get escalated as a conversation, not quietly overridden.
4. Conflicts get named, not averaged: when reviewer A wants detail added and reviewer B wants the section cut, the author doesn't split the difference into mush — the conflict is surfaced ("A and B, you're asking for opposites here — my recommendation is B's cut because [header test]; A, does the appendix satisfy the need?") and decided once, on the record.
5. The sweep closes everything: every comment ends in resolved / replied / escalated — a doc with lingering open comments reads as contested, and approvers notice. The closing summary ("38 taken, 4 declined with reasons, 2 conflicts resolved with A/B") converts the review round into a credibility artifact.