Changes to .github/workflows/review-pr.yml:

review job:
- Add 'Classify trigger type' step that sets user_requested=true for
  explicit invocations (issue_comment /review, pull_request
  review_requested, explicit pr-number input, resolve-context trigger
  path) and user_requested=false for automatic pull_request events.
- 'Check if PR is draft' now skips for user-requested triggers
  (condition adds: && steps.trigger-type.outputs.user_requested != 'true').
  Draft check is only relevant for automatic reviews.
- Remove 'Check if org member' step entirely — org membership is no
  longer a gate for any review path.
- 'Setup credentials', 'Create check run', 'Checkout PR head', and
  'Run PR Review' conditions updated from:
    steps.membership.outputs.is_member == 'true' &&
    steps.command.outputs.is_review != 'false' &&
    steps.draft.outputs.skip != 'true'
  to:
    steps.command.outputs.is_review != 'false' &&
    (steps.trigger-type.outputs.user_requested == 'true' ||
     steps.draft.outputs.skip != 'true')
  This keeps the draft gate for automatic reviews while bypassing ALL
  gates for user-requested reviews.

reply-to-feedback job:
- Remove 'Check authorization' step (org membership check via
  ORG_MEMBERSHIP_TOKEN).
- Remove 'Notify unauthorized user' step (fallback response to
  non-members).
- 'Build thread context', 'Checkout PR head', and 'Run reply' conditions
  simplified from:
    steps.check.outputs.is_agent == 'true' &&
    steps.auth.outputs.authorized == 'true'
  to:
    steps.check.outputs.is_agent == 'true'
  Any user replying to an agent review comment now gets a response.
- Update skip-auth comment to reflect the authorization model change.

Note: issue_comment replies to agent PR-level comments (as opposed to
pull_request_review_comment replies) are not handled by reply-to-feedback
— this pre-existing gap is not addressed in this PR.

Assisted-By: docker-agent

… bypassed for user-requested

Amends the previous commit. The org-membership check was removed too
broadly. The correct behaviour is:

- Automatic triggers (pull_request, not review_requested): draft check
  gates entry; org-membership check runs as before.
- User-requested triggers (review_requested, /review command, explicit
  pr-number, resolve-context path): draft check is bypassed; org-
  membership check still runs and still gates Checkout + Run steps.

The bypass works naturally: when 'Check if PR is draft' is skipped
(user_requested == 'true'), steps.draft.outputs.skip is empty string.
The original condition 'draft.skip != 'true'' therefore evaluates true,
so Setup credentials, Check if org member, and all downstream steps
proceed with their original logic — no changes needed to their ifs.

Changes vs the previous commit on this branch:
- Restore 'Check if org member' step with its original condition and
  script (was removed in previous commit).
- Restore 'Setup credentials' original condition: is_review != 'false'
  && draft.skip != 'true' (was widened unnecessarily).
- Restore 'Create check run' original condition: source in
  [event,trigger] && membership.is_member == 'true' (was changed).
- Restore 'Checkout PR head' and 'Run PR Review' original conditions:
  membership.is_member == 'true' && is_review != 'false' &&
  draft.skip != 'true' (was stripped of membership gate).
- Update the comment in 'Classify trigger type' to accurately describe
  that it only affects the draft check.

reply-to-feedback: no change — org-membership removal there is still
the intended behaviour.

Assisted-By: docker-agent

…quested triggers

Reverts all changes beyond the single intended behaviour: user-requested
review triggers (review_requested for docker-agent, /review comment,
explicit pr-number input) skip the draft check. Everything else is
verbatim original.

Net diff from upstream/main:
1. New 'Classify trigger type' step (id: trigger-type) — classifies
   the trigger as user_requested=true/false.
2. 'Check if PR is draft' condition:
     was: github.event_name != 'issue_comment'
     now: github.event_name != 'issue_comment'
          && steps.trigger-type.outputs.user_requested != 'true'

Restores in this commit:
- 'Check authorization' step in reply-to-feedback (verbatim original)
- 'Notify unauthorized user' step in reply-to-feedback (verbatim)
- 'Build thread context', 'Checkout PR head', 'Run reply' conditions in
  reply-to-feedback restored to include steps.auth.outputs.authorized
- skip-auth comment on 'Run reply' restored to original text
- All conditions in the review job beyond Check if PR is draft are
  unchanged from upstream/main (no membership gates were modified)

Assisted-By: docker-agent

When @docker-agent is mentioned on an inline PR review comment, the reply
now lands in the same inline thread on the file/line being asked about,
instead of as an unrelated PR-level Issues comment.

Four reinforcing layers fixed:

1. src/mention-reply/index.ts — parseEventContext now captures the
   inline-only fields (path, line, original_line, diff_hunk, and the
   originating comment id as in_reply_to_id) into a new EventContext.inline
   sub-object. Was previously discarded.

2. src/mention-reply/index.ts — buildContextPrompt emits a new
   [INLINE COMMENT CONTEXT] block (FILE_PATH / LINE / IN_REPLY_TO_ID +
   data-isolated diff hunk) immediately before the mention-comment block,
   only when the trigger was pull_request_review_comment.

3. review-pr/agents/pr-review-mention-reply.yaml — agent instruction is
   now branched: when [INLINE COMMENT CONTEXT] is present, post via
   POST /repos/{o}/{r}/pulls/{n}/comments with in_reply_to=IN_REPLY_TO_ID
   so GitHub renders the reply in the originating thread; otherwise keep
   the existing Issues API path. Each branch uses jq -n --arg to avoid
   the shell-interpolation injection foot-gun. The permissions allow-list
   adds repos/*/pulls/*/comments* alongside the existing issues path.

4. src/post-comment/index.ts — adds postReviewCommentReply helper
   (Octokit pulls.createReplyForReviewComment) and uses it in the
   non-org-member rejection branch so the rejection also lands in the
   originating inline thread, not as a PR-level comment.

Tests: extended src/mention-reply/__tests__ to cover the new inline
fields end-to-end (parse, prompt, run() rejection routing, run() prompt
output) and added src/post-comment/__tests__ for postReviewCommentReply.
128 unit tests passing.

Falls back to original_line when line is null (multi-line comments)
matching the existing reply-to-feedback pattern in review-pr.yml.

Refs: PR #544 on docker/gordon, where derekmisler asked
'@docker-agent, do you think this is important?' on a single line of YAML
and got a global PR-level verdict instead of a line-anchored answer.

Assisted-By: docker-agent