How to review GitHub Copilot PR reviews now

How do I review pull requests from GitHub Copilot code review now

Open the pull request, add Copilot as a reviewer, wait for the review to finish, then read Copilot’s comments in the Files changed view or the conversation thread. You review them the same way you review human feedback: assess the issue, apply a suggested change if it is right, resolve the thread when the fix is done, or leave it open when you still need work.

On GitHub.com, the current flow starts in the pull request itself. Select Copilot from the Reviewers menu, then wait for Copilot to review the branch. GitHub’s docs say the review usually arrives within a few minutes, and Copilot leaves a Comment review, not an Approve or Request changes review. That means Copilot adds guidance, but it does not block merging on its own.

The part people get wrong is treating Copilot like a human approver. Copilot code review does not count toward required approvals, and it does not replace your team’s review policy. The useful habit is to treat Copilot comments as a fast first pass, then decide which ones are factual, which ones are style-only, and which ones are noise. GitHub also notes that you can react to, comment on, resolve, and hide Copilot’s review comments just like standard review comments.

The interface changed enough that the exact place to look matters. GitHub now shows Copilot code review comments with severity labels such as High, Medium, and Low, and it groups similar comments together to reduce repetition on large pull requests. The inconvenient part is that grouped feedback can hide how many files are affected at first glance, so you should open the diff and check every occurrence before you decide a comment is fully handled.

When Copilot suggests a concrete fix, use the suggested change only after you verify it in context. A suggestion can be right for one file and wrong for the surrounding code path, imported types, or existing style in the repository. If you accept the change, commit it, then return to the thread and resolve it after the code in the branch actually reflects the fix. That keeps the review history aligned with the code, which is what later reviewers will trust.

If you are reviewing from the GitHub Copilot app, the flow is similar but starts in My work. GitHub Docs says you open the pull request there, switch to Files changed to inspect the diff, start a new session if you want Copilot to help with the review, and then return to the pull request detail view to submit your review. The app also lets you respond to review comments and resolve failing CI checks from the same place.

Use the comment itself as the unit of work. For each Copilot comment, ask three questions: is the issue real, is the suggested fix minimal, and does the change preserve behavior If the answer to any of those is no, leave a reply explaining what you checked and why you are not applying it. That is especially important for code that looks suspicious to a model but is intentional in the project, such as a nonstandard API call, a compatibility shim, or a test fixture that is supposed to be unusual.

Copilot review is also available across more of the pull request lifecycle than just the first review pass. GitHub documents that organization owners can enable Copilot code review more broadly, including for pull requests from authors without a Copilot license in some org setups, and GitHub CLI now supports requesting Copilot code review from the command line. If your team has those features turned on, the review step may start outside the browser, but the way you read and act on the comments stays the same.

A practical way to review is to work top to bottom. First scan the severity labels, then inspect the grouped comments, then open any suggested changes, then confirm the resulting diff does not introduce new problems. If a comment is low priority and obviously stylistic, you can leave it for a later cleanup. If it is high severity and touches correctness, fix it before you continue with anything else.

If you are asking where Copilot fits relative to human review, the answer is simple: Copilot is a reviewer, not the review. GitHub’s pull request docs still treat people and teams as the reviewers who request changes, approve code, and decide when a pull request is ready to merge. Copilot adds faster feedback and line-level suggestions, but the final decision still belongs to the repo’s human review process.

If you want a place to practice the workflow with real pull requests, DevConnect keeps the exchange simple: you test someone else’s app, they test yours, and nothing charges a fee. The platform link is here if you need it: https://devconnectplatform.com. That is separate from GitHub’s review flow, but the same habit applies, read the feedback, verify the fix, and close the loop only when the code matches the comment.

What should I do if Copilot’s review looks wrong

Check the surrounding code, not just the line Copilot flagged. Copilot can surface real issues, but it can also flag a pattern that is deliberate in that repository. If the code is correct, reply with a short explanation in the thread so future reviewers understand why the comment stayed open or was resolved without a change.

Can Copilot approve my pull request

No. GitHub says Copilot leaves a Comment review, not an Approve review or a Request changes review. That means Copilot comments help you review faster, but they do not satisfy required approvals and they do not stop a merge by themselves.

Where do I see Copilot’s comments after the review finishes

Look in the pull request’s conversation and Files changed views. GitHub’s docs say Copilot creates review comments on the pull request, and those comments behave like normal review comments. You can add reactions, reply, resolve threads, or hide them in the same place you would for human feedback.

What changed in the newer Copilot code review experience

GitHub added severity labels and grouped similar comments together. That makes large reviews easier to scan, but it also means you should check whether one grouped comment represents one file or many repeated cases before you mark the work done.