fix-pr-review

# fix-pr-review Take all unaddressed review feedback on a pull request and resolve it fully and autonomously: re-validate each finding against the code, fix the ones that are real, push back on the ones that aren't, and for the judgment calls the reviewer couldn't make — and for the optional improvements — derive and implement the absolute-best solution rather than pausing. Then report back on the PR and request a re-review. Don't stop to ask the user; do the work. **The review is a hypothesis, not a work order.** A reviewer (human or `@claude`) can cite a stale line, misread a conditional, or flag a non-bug. Implementing a wrong suggestion ships a regression with a reviewer's blessing. So every finding is traced to current `file:line` and confirmed *before* you change anything. You are not performing agreement — you are verifying claims and acting only on the ones that hold. ## Input The user provides, in any order: - An optional PR reference: `#<N>` / `<N>` / full URL / `owner/repo#N`. Omit it to **default to the PR for the current branch** (`gh pr view`). - An optional literal bot token, `codex` (case-insensitive), selecting Codex as this cycle's re-review bot (step 10). A token that is neither a PR reference nor `codex` is not a bot selection. A token matching neither category (a typo like `codexx`, a malformed reference like `#abc`, a stray extra word) doesn't block resolution: ignore it for parsing — fall back to the current-branch PR if no valid reference was give...