docs: add conflict resolution guidance to /review skill

[carlos-alm]

Summary

• Adds explicit instructions to the /review skill's conflict resolution step (2b) to check PR commit history and reviewer comments before choosing which side of a conflict to keep
• Prevents incorrect resolutions where the review agent blindly picks a side without understanding why each version exists

Context

During conflict resolution on #475, the template-literal syntax was the PR's intentional change but was nearly discarded in favor of main's stale concatenation. The review skill lacked guidance to check why each side differs before resolving.

Test plan

• Run /review on a PR with conflicts and verify it checks commit history before resolving

[claude]

Claude encountered an error —— View job

---

I'll analyze this and get back to you.

[greptile-apps]

Greptile Summary

This PR replaces the terse one-liner "Resolve all conflicts by reading the conflicting files…" in the /review skill with a thorough, multi-step checklist that forces the agent to understand the why behind each side of a conflict before touching it. The motivation is sound — a real incident on #475 nearly discarded an intentional template-literal change in favour of stale string concatenation from main.

The added guidance is a clear improvement: it covers PR description context, commit history for both sides, reviewer comments, and a merge-base diff check. The previous review thread's concern (only one side of the conflict was inspected) has been addressed by adding the git log HEAD..origin/<base-branch> command.

Key issues found:

• The git log --oneline HEAD..origin/<base-branch> -- <file> command for inspecting the base-branch side is present in both bullet 3 and bullet 4, with identical intent. The only unique content in bullet 4 is the suggestion to read the merged PR descriptions, which could be folded into bullet 3 to eliminate the duplication.

Confidence Score: 4/5

• Safe to merge after addressing the duplicate git log bullet.
• The change is documentation-only and a net improvement. The single redundancy (duplicated git command across bullets 3 and 4) is a clarity issue rather than a correctness bug, but it is worth fixing before merging to avoid confusing the agent.
• .claude/skills/review/SKILL.md — specifically lines 65–67 where the base-branch log command is duplicated.

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
.claude/skills/review/SKILL.md	Adds detailed conflict-resolution guidance to step 2b; improvement is solid but the git log HEAD..origin/<base-branch> -- <file> command is duplicated across bullet 3 and bullet 4, creating redundancy that could confuse the agent.

Flowchart

%%{init: {'theme': 'neutral'}}%%
flowchart TD
    A[Conflict detected] --> B[git merge origin/base-branch]
    B --> C{Conflicts?}
    C -- No --> Z[Stage & commit & push]
    C -- Yes --> D[Read PR description\ngh pr view]
    D --> E[git log PR side\norigin/base..HEAD -- file]
    E --> F[git log base side\nHEAD..origin/base -- file\n⚠ duplicated in bullets 3 & 4]
    F --> G[Read reviewer comments\ngh api pulls/comments + issues/comments]
    G --> H[git diff merge-base\nIntentional vs stale?]
    H --> I{Decision}
    I -- PR changed deliberately\nbase is stale --> J[Keep PR version]
    I -- base introduced fix\nPR lacks it --> K[Keep base version]
    I -- Both sides changed\nintentionally --> L[Manually merge both]
    J --> Z
    K --> Z
    L --> Z

Loading

_{Last reviewed commit: ff33639}

[carlos-alm]

@greptileai