Use GitHub MCP with Claude Code to Turn PR Review Into a Fix Plan

A good PR review tells you what feels risky.

A good fix plan tells you what to do next, in what order, and where the branch should stop.

That difference matters. Teams get into trouble when they take a review summary like "permission checks may be incomplete" and jump straight into editing. The branch gets bigger, the reviewer loses the original boundary, and what should have been a targeted repair turns into an improvised rewrite.

This page is for the narrower move after review: turn findings into an executable plan before touching code.

Start With Review Findings You Can Defend#

Do not build a plan on top of mush.

The input should be one of these:

• a Claude review summary that already names concrete blockers or missing validation
• reviewer comments that point to exact risks
• a short human note that says what must be fixed before approval

The input should not be:

• "needs cleanup"
• "something feels off here"
• a baggy summary that restates the PR without making any ranking decisions

If the finding is too vague to survive one skeptical follow-up question, it is too vague to plan against.

That is why the review step comes first. A weak review produces a decorative plan.

Reopen The PR Context Before You Plan Anything#

Even if you already reviewed the PR ten minutes ago, reopen the context inside Claude Code.

claude mcp list
claude mcp get github

Then work from the repository that contains the branch.

This is not ceremonial. A fix plan is only useful when it stays anchored to the actual changed files, the PR description, and the current diff. If Claude only sees your pasted summary and not the repository context, it will start writing plans that sound organized but drift away from the branch.

If GitHub MCP is still unstable, go back to Setup GitHub MCP Server with Cursor or Claude Code.

If the earlier review itself was weak, start with Use GitHub MCP with Claude Code to Review a Pull Request Before Merging.

What A Real Fix Plan Must Include#

The plan does not need to be long. It does need to answer a few hard questions:

1. Which finding gets fixed first?
2. Which files or code paths are likely involved?
3. What should change?
4. What must stay unchanged?
5. How will you know the fix actually reduced the risk?
6. What belongs in a later PR instead of this one?

If one of those questions stays blurry, the plan is probably still too broad.

One practical smell test helps here: could another developer take the plan, open the repo, and start the first task without rereading the whole debate from scratch? If not, the plan is still mostly commentary.

Copy This Fix-Plan Prompt#

Paste this into Claude Code after opening the repository:

Use GitHub MCP for pull request context gathering first. Do not edit code yet.

Turn this pull request review into a fix plan: [paste PR link or number]

Use these findings as the planning input:
[paste the review summary, merge blockers, or reviewer comments]

Build the plan in this order:
1. Restate the top 1 to 3 issues in plain language
2. Rank them by dependency order, not by writing style
3. Map each issue to the files or code paths most likely involved
4. For each issue, say what should change and what must stay unchanged
5. Name the smallest validation step for each fix
6. Mark anything that should be split into a follow-up PR instead of fixed here
7. End with a compact execution plan and stop before writing code

Rules:
- Prefer smaller sequential fixes over a broad rewrite
- If a finding is too vague to plan, say that directly
- If the diff is too wide, narrow the first plan to the highest-risk issue only
- Call out missing evidence, missing tests, or missing product decisions before pretending the plan is clear

This prompt does one important job: it forces Claude to move from diagnosis into sequencing without letting it skip into implementation theater.

What Good Planning Output Looks Like#

You are looking for compression, not volume.

A useful fix plan usually has these traits:

• the first item is clearly the riskiest or most blocking one
• the file map is short enough that a human can open it immediately
• each step says both what should change and what should stay stable
• validation is attached to each fix instead of dumped into one vague "test it"
• the plan explicitly kicks some work out of scope when the branch is already too wide

The best plans feel a little strict. They cut work away.

A Concrete Example Of The Difference#

Suppose the earlier review found this problem:

Admin permission checks moved out of middleware, but the PR does not show how protected routes are still verified.

Bad plan:

• inspect auth files
• update permission logic
• add tests

That plan is useless because it does not tell you where the actual risk starts or how to keep the branch from spreading.

Better plan:

• inspect the middleware or route-guard files touched by the PR and confirm where admin checks now live
• compare that path with the specific admin routes or handlers affected by the diff
• restore or tighten the missing check without changing unrelated auth flow
• add one regression test or route-level validation that proves a non-admin request still fails
• keep role-model cleanup or permission refactors out of this PR unless the blocker cannot be resolved otherwise

That is the level you want. It is specific enough to execute and narrow enough to review.

When The Plan Is Still Too Wide#

Sometimes the output looks organized but is still too large to trust.

Watch for these failure patterns:

• one fix step touches half a subsystem
• the plan names six or seven files for every issue
• "validation" means a vague full-app test pass with no targeted check
• every problem somehow turns into a refactor opportunity
• the plan never states what stays out of scope

When that happens, the right move is usually not another giant prompt. It is a narrower plan.

Use This Narrowing Prompt For The First Fix Only#

Narrow the plan to the first blocker only.

1. Ignore lower-priority comments and polish
2. Keep only the files needed for the first safe fix
3. State the smallest code change that would reduce the blocker
4. State one thing that must not change while making that fix
5. Name the fastest validation step that proves the blocker is reduced
6. Stop there

This works well when the branch is already too wide or when the first review surfaced one clearly dominant risk.

Use This Prompt When Reviewer Comments Conflict#

Sometimes the problem is not lack of findings. It is too many findings that point in different directions.

Reconcile these review findings into one ordered plan.

1. Group comments that refer to the same underlying risk
2. Separate true merge blockers from optional improvements
3. Rank the blockers in the order they should be fixed
4. For each blocker, name the likely files and the validation check
5. Mark anything that should wait for a later PR
6. Stop before code

That is usually better than treating every comment as its own isolated task.

A Small Human Rubric For Deciding Whether The Plan Is Good#

Before you accept the plan, check five things:

1. Could a developer start the first fix without reopening the entire PR conversation?
2. Does the plan protect the branch boundary instead of expanding it?
3. Is each validation step tied to one concrete risk?
4. Did the plan explicitly reject at least some tempting extra work?
5. Would the reviewer recognize their concern in the first one or two plan items?

If those answers are weak, do not code yet. Rewrite the plan.

When To Move From Planning Into Execution#

Move into implementation only when the first fix item is small enough that you can describe it in one sentence.

For example:

• "restore the admin permission guard for the routes changed in this PR and add one regression test"
• "put the null check back into the webhook parsing path and validate one failing payload case"

Do not move into execution on sentences like:

• "clean up auth handling"
• "refactor the validation layer"
• "make the PR safer"

Those are planning failures disguised as execution goals.

Mistakes That Waste This Step#

• treating the review summary itself as a plan
• asking for code changes before deciding execution order
• accepting a file list with no validation strategy
• using the fix plan to sneak unrelated cleanup into the PR
• pretending a vague blocker is clear enough just because it sounds technical
• keeping every reviewer suggestion in scope even when the branch is already too wide

This step exists to reduce noise. If it makes the branch broader, it is failing.

Official References#

• GitHub MCP Server Repository
• GitHub Agentic Workflows: Getting Started With MCP
• Anthropic Docs: Connect Claude Code to tools via MCP

What To Read Next#

Read Use GitHub MCP with Claude Code to Review a Pull Request Before Merging if the review step itself is not reliable yet.

Read Use GitHub MCP with Claude Code to Handle Reviewer Comments and Find the Right Files if the pull request now has live review-thread feedback and the next job is comment triage.

Read Use GitHub MCP with Claude Code to Find the Right Files From an Issue if the real problem starts earlier at issue triage and file discovery.

Read Cursor vs Claude Code if the broader question is whether this planning loop should stay terminal-first or move into the editor.