[Reply To Review Comments] Phase 2: Toolset Integration

[lossyrob]

Phase 2: Toolset Integration

This PR registers the ReplyToReviewComment tool in the pull_requests toolset, making it discoverable through the MCP server's tool listing.

Changes Made

Tool Registration (pkg/github/tools.go):

• Added toolsets.NewServerTool(ReplyToReviewComment(getClient, t)) to the AddWriteTools section
• Positioned after AddCommentToPendingReview to group review-related write tools together
• Tool is now part of the pull_requests/repository_management toolset

Documentation (pkg/github/pullrequests.go):

• Added clarifying comment about intentional variable shadowing in error handling
• Follows established pattern used throughout the file

Verification

• ✅ Build completes successfully with no errors
• ✅ All tests pass: script/test
• ✅ Linting passes with 0 issues: script/lint
• ✅ Tool is correctly categorized as a write tool (ReadOnlyHint set to false in Phase 1)
• ✅ Tool registration follows established pattern

Implementation Plan

Full implementation plan: .paw/work/reply-to-review-comments/ImplementationPlan.md

Related Issue

Implements: github#1323

Next Steps

Phase 3 will add comprehensive unit tests with toolsnap validation and table-driven behavioral tests covering success and error scenarios.

---

🐾 Generated with PAW

[lossyrob]

🐾 Implementation Reviewer 🤖:

I've completed the review of Phase 2 implementation. Here's what I found:

Review Summary

✅ Code Quality: Implementation is clean and follows established patterns

• Tool registration in pkg/github/tools.go follows the exact pattern used for other tools
• Positioned logically with other review-related write tools
• Uses toolsets.NewServerTool wrapper correctly

✅ Tests & Linting: All automated checks pass

• Full test suite passes: script/test ✓
• Linting clean with 0 issues: script/lint ✓
• Build completes successfully

✅ Code Review: No unnecessary code or design issues

• Single line addition to register the tool (minimal, focused change)
• No duplicate logic across files
• No unused parameters or dead code

Documentation Added

Added a clarifying comment in pkg/github/pullrequests.go about intentional variable shadowing in error handling. This follows the established pattern used throughout the file (e.g., in CreatePullRequest).

Commits Pushed

1. 31c8768 - Register ReplyToReviewComment tool in pull_requests toolset (Implementation Agent)
2. d55854c - Update ImplementationPlan.md with Phase 2 commit hash (Implementation Agent)
3. d2784b0 - docs: clarify intentional variable shadowing in error handling (Implementation Reviewer)

The PR is ready for human review!