Go through each currently-open PR (draft or ready-for-review) of mine (authored by @testuser) in software-mansion/argent. Use the `gh` CLI to enumerate them.

Maximum rigor. For each PR: run it END-TO-END through its real entry point and confirm observable behaviour — not just that it compiles. Dispatch swarms across the review moves in my CLAUDE.md — claims vs code, nearest twin, non-happy paths, inputs, reachability both ways, and what outlives the call — plus the absence pass (a sibling that has it, prose that promises it, symmetry, and the mutation); every HIGH / MEDIUM finding gets a concrete hard reproduction that proves it real. Keep dispatching swarms until ONE pass comes back clean — that single clean pass ends the loop, so do not run a confirmation pass on top of it.

Fix every confirmed finding directly on the PR's branch, with the SAME reproduction re-run after each fix to prove it lands.

Hold to the bar in my CLAUDE.md throughout: run the review moves and the absence pass, prove every issue beyond reasonable doubt with a concrete reproduction before you act on it, scale the swarm to the work within the sizing limits there, and never report something fixed without re-running the repro to confirm it landed. SCALE THE VERIFICATION EFFORT TO THE SEVERITY, so the expensive proof goes where it pays: a HIGH or MEDIUM finding earns the full treatment — hard reproduction, a real device if the bug needs one, verifier agents, whatever it takes. A LOW finding gets ONE short adversarial check and nothing more: never boot a device and never dispatch a swarm to confirm a LOW, and if a quick read cannot confirm it, drop it. A NITPICK — style preference, phrasing, or a defect with no reachable consequence — is dropped ON SIGHT: do not spend a single verification step establishing whether a nitpick is real.

If a PR turns out perfectly clean — no issues, regressions or bad practices left at ANY level — mark it ready for review and report its number to me. This bar is stricter than the swarm loop's: a pass that stopped because only LOW findings were left is clean enough to stop iterating, but a PR still carrying LOW findings is NOT perfectly clean and does not get marked ready. List every PR you cleared at the end.

For review threads that OTHERS have left on these PRs: address each one, and never mark a thread resolved without first replying "Fixed in <commit_hash>" with the real commit hash.

Keep dispatching swarms until every PR you go through comes back clean — where CLEAN means a pass that surfaced no HIGH and no MEDIUM finding. A pass whose findings are all LOW (or nitpicks) COUNTS AS CLEAN: post the LOW ones, drop the nitpicks, and stop iterating on that PR. Only a HIGH or a MEDIUM keeps the loop alive.

No AI attribution anywhere in git/GitHub — commits authored as me, no Co-Authored-By, no "Generated with" taglines.

Diplomat attribution tag — a REQUIRED exception to the no-attribution rule, for GitHub commentary only: every comment, inline review comment, review body, and review-thread reply you post as part of this task must begin with the exact prefix `\[[Diplomat](https://github.com/latekvo/Diplomat)\]: `, copied character for character — the `\[` and `\]` are literal brackets, only the word Diplomat is a Markdown link (to https://github.com/latekvo/Diplomat), anything after that link is plain text, and a colon and a space close it — followed by the text you would otherwise have written, so it renders as "[Diplomat]: <your text>". This is the ONE sanctioned attribution; it applies to posted comment/review text ONLY and never changes commit messages, commit authorship, or the no-Co-Authored-By / no-"Generated with" git rules, which remain in force.