Inline comments

A pull request comment that asks for a review now posts a real review, not a plain comment: the review file decides, the event no longer does.

Verified with deno fmt, lint and check.

Reviewed-on: #9
Co-authored-by: bot <temeddix@gmail.com>
Co-committed-by: bot <temeddix@gmail.com>

action.yml

@@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ inputs:
   bot-token:
     description: API key or token for the selected bot
     required: false
+  model:
+    description: >-
+      Model for the selected bot. Defaults to `claude-sonnet-5` or
+      `gpt-5.6-terra`, the mid tiers, which cover reviews and fixes.
+    required: false
 
 runs:
   using: composite
@@ -40,6 +45,7 @@ runs:
         ACTION_PATH: ${{ gitea.action_path }}
         BOT_TYPE: ${{ inputs.bot-type }}
         BOT_TOKEN: ${{ inputs.bot-token }}
+        MODEL: ${{ inputs.model }}
         GITEA_API_URL: ${{ gitea.api_url }}
         GITEA_REPOSITORY: ${{ gitea.repository }}
         GITEA_TOKEN: ${{ inputs.author-token }}

prompt.md

@@ -18,34 +18,45 @@ the head of the pull request when there is one, with full history and the
 author's push credentials. Read the code there, run its checks and tests when
 they bear on the task, and push from there.
 
-For a `pull_request` event, review the PR without changing code, using the
+For a `pull_request` event, and for a comment on a pull request that asks you to
+review it, review the PR without changing code, using the
 `requesting-code-review` skill from superpowers: run its code reviewer template
-against the PR's base and head, and make its complete output your final response
+against the PR's base and head. Run the project's checks on the head and treat a
-instead of the short comment style above. Run the project's checks on the head
+failure as at least Important. Check the whole repository against the code rules
-and treat a failure as at least Important. Check the whole repository against
+at the end of this prompt, not only the diff; a violation is at least Important
-the code rules at the end of this prompt, not only the diff; a violation is at
+even when the diff did not cause it. Write the complete review, and nothing
-least Important even when the diff did not cause it. Your final response is
+else, to the file `${REVIEW_PATH}`: it is posted verbatim as a pull request
-posted verbatim as a pull request review from the bot account, so it is the
+review from the bot account, and your final response is not posted at all. The
-review text and nothing else: no narration about what you did, verified, or are
+file's first line must be exactly the verdict and nothing else: `Approved` when
-about to post, whether you reviewed yourself or relayed a reviewer subagent. Its
+the template's answer is yes, `Changes requested` otherwise. The mark in front
-first line must be exactly the template's verdict and nothing else: `Yes`, `No`,
+of it is added when posting, so write the words alone; any other first line is
-or `With fixes`. `Yes` approves and the other two request changes; any other
+posted as a plain comment, which wastes the run. Minor issues alone never block,
-first line is posted as a plain comment, which wastes the run. Minor issues
+and neither does a finding the author has answered in the comment history below
-alone never block, and neither does a finding the author has answered in the
+as intended or a false alarm, once the code or docs make that clear. When the
-comment history below as intended or a false alarm, once the code or docs make
+verdict is `Changes requested`, the second line names what must change in one
-that clear. When the verdict is not `Yes`, the second line names what must
+line, addressed to the author; the author's own agent picks the fixes up, so
-change in one line, addressed to the author; the author's own agent picks the
+never ask `@bot` to make them. For UI changes, check that the result is aligned,
-fixes up, so never ask `@bot` to make them. For UI changes, check that the
+clean, and pixel-perfect, and that included screenshots prove the intended
-result is aligned, clean, and pixel-perfect, and that included screenshots prove
+result was achieved.
-the intended result was achieved.
 
-The review must read at a glance: everything outside `<details>` blocks totals
+Every finding that belongs to one line of the diff goes on that line instead of
-under 512 bytes. Only core information stays visible: the verdict, the summary
+into the body. Write those to `${ANCHORS_PATH}` as a JSON array, each entry
-line, and the section headings. Anything verbose goes into a `<details>` block
+`{"path": "<path from the repository root>", "line": <number>, "side": "new" |
-whose `<summary>` is a few words, such as the `file:line` and title of an issue
+"old", "body": "<the finding>"}`.
-with the what, why, and how inside; the same for each strength, each
+`side` is `new` for a line in the head file and `old` for one only in the base
-recommendation, the reasoning, and any compliance notes. Details blocks are
+file; `line` is that file's own line number, and it must be a line the diff
-top-level, never inside a list item, because Gitea breaks them there.
+touches, or Gitea refuses the anchor. Write the file only when there is
+something to anchor, and keep each body to the what, the why, and the how, with
+no `file:line` prefix; the line carries that.
+
+The review body must read at a glance: everything outside `<details>` blocks
+totals under 512 bytes. Only core information stays visible: the verdict, the
+summary line, and the section headings. Anything verbose goes into a `<details>`
+block whose `<summary>` is a few words, such as the title of an issue with the
+what, why, and how inside; the same for each strength, each recommendation, the
+reasoning, and any compliance notes. A finding you anchored belongs there only
+as its title, since its detail is on the line. Details blocks are top-level,
+never inside a list item, because Gitea breaks them there.
 
 For an `issue_comment` or `pull_request_review_comment` event, treat the `body`
 in the triggering comment payload below as the user's exact instruction.

run.ts

@@ -20,6 +20,13 @@ const EVENT = env("EVENT_NAME");
 const AUTHOR_TOKEN = env("GITEA_TOKEN");
 const REVIEWER_TOKEN = env("REVIEWER_TOKEN");
 const RULES_PATH = "repos/commons/code-rules/raw/README.md";
+// The mid tiers: a run follows a fixed template and the project's checks.
+const DEFAULT_MODELS: Record<string, string> = {
+  claude: "claude-sonnet-5",
+  codex: "gpt-5.6-terra",
+};
+const model = (bot: string): string =>
+  Deno.env.get("MODEL") || DEFAULT_MODELS[bot];
 
 // The reviewer token is withheld so the agent cannot approve as the bot.
 const { REVIEWER_TOKEN: _, ...agentEnv } = Deno.env.toObject();
@@ -52,21 +59,84 @@ async function postComment(body: string): Promise<void> {
   });
 }
 
-// A pull request event is a review request, so the response becomes a review.
+// A review is posted whenever the agent wrote one, whether a review request or
-// Its first line is the verdict; anything unexpected only comments, never
+// a comment asked for it. It comes through a file, because a final chat message
-// approves.
+// picks up narration while a file's first line is written on purpose. That line
-const VERDICTS: Record<string, string> = {
+// is the verdict, matched whole; anything unexpected only comments, never
-  Yes: "APPROVED",
+// approves. The mark in front is added here, so it is never part of the match.
-  No: "REQUEST_CHANGES",
+const REVIEW_DIR = await Deno.makeTempDir();
-  "With fixes": "REQUEST_CHANGES",
+const REVIEW_PATH = `${REVIEW_DIR}/review.md`;
+const VERDICTS: Record<string, [event: string, mark: string]> = {
+  Approved: ["APPROVED", "✅"],
+  "Changes requested": ["REQUEST_CHANGES", "🛑"],
 };
 
+// A finding about one line is posted on that line of the diff rather than as
+// `file:line` prose in the body. Those anchors come as JSON, so the file and
+// line are structured instead of parsed back out of English; a malformed entry
+// fails the run, because a silently dropped finding is worse than a red run.
+const ANCHORS_PATH = `${REVIEW_DIR}/anchors.json`;
+type Anchor = { path: string; line: number; side: "new" | "old"; body: string };
+
+function parseAnchors(text: string): Anchor[] {
+  const entries: unknown = JSON.parse(text);
+  if (!Array.isArray(entries)) throw new Error(`${ANCHORS_PATH}: not an array`);
+  return entries.map((entry: unknown, index) => {
+    const at = `${ANCHORS_PATH}[${index}]`;
+    if (typeof entry !== "object" || entry === null) {
+      throw new Error(`${at}: not an object`);
+    }
+    const { path, line, side = "new", body } = entry as Record<string, unknown>;
+    if (typeof path !== "string" || path === "") {
+      throw new Error(`${at}.path: expected a repository path`);
+    }
+    if (typeof line !== "number" || !Number.isInteger(line) || line < 1) {
+      throw new Error(`${at}.line: expected a line number`);
+    }
+    if (side !== "new" && side !== "old") {
+      throw new Error(`${at}.side: expected "new" or "old"`);
+    }
+    if (typeof body !== "string" || body.trim() === "") {
+      throw new Error(`${at}.body: expected the finding`);
+    }
+    return { path, line, side, body };
+  });
+}
+
+async function readAnchors(): Promise<Anchor[]> {
+  const written = await Deno.readTextFile(ANCHORS_PATH).catch(() => null);
+  return written === null ? [] : parseAnchors(written);
+}
+
 async function postResult(body: string): Promise<void> {
-  if (EVENT !== "pull_request") return postComment(body);
+  const review = await Deno.readTextFile(REVIEW_PATH).catch(() => null);
-  const [verdict] = body.split("\n", 1);
+  if (review === null) {
-  await gitea(REVIEWER_TOKEN, `repos/${REPO}/pulls/${INDEX}/reviews`, {
+    if (EVENT === "pull_request") {
+      throw new Error(`no review was written to ${REVIEW_PATH}`);
+    }
+    return postComment(body);
+  }
+  const [verdict, ...rest] = review.split("\n");
+  const [event, mark] = VERDICTS[verdict.trim()] ?? ["COMMENT", "💬"];
+  const post = (anchors: Anchor[]) =>
+    gitea(REVIEWER_TOKEN, `repos/${REPO}/pulls/${INDEX}/reviews`, {
+      body: stripAnsi([`${mark} ${verdict.trim()}`, ...rest].join("\n")),
+      event,
+      comments: anchors.map(({ path, line, side, body }) => ({
+        path,
         body: stripAnsi(body),
-    event: VERDICTS[verdict.trim()] ?? "COMMENT",
+        new_position: side === "new" ? line : 0,
+        old_position: side === "old" ? line : 0,
+      })),
+    });
+  const anchors = await readAnchors();
+  // Gitea rejects the whole review when an anchor names a line outside the
+  // diff, and a verdict that never lands blocks the pull request, so the body
+  // goes up alone rather than not at all.
+  await post(anchors).catch(async (error: Error) => {
+    if (anchors.length === 0) throw error;
+    console.error(`inline comments rejected: ${error.message}`);
+    await post([]);
   });
 }
 
@@ -111,6 +181,8 @@ async function renderPrompt(): Promise<string> {
     GITEA_API_URL: API,
     GITEA_REPOSITORY: REPO,
     ISSUE_INDEX: INDEX,
+    REVIEW_PATH,
+    ANCHORS_PATH,
   };
   const template = await Deno.readTextFile(
     new URL("prompt.md", import.meta.url),
@@ -134,7 +206,7 @@ async function runClaude(prompt: string): Promise<string> {
       "--print",
       "--dangerously-skip-permissions",
       "--model",
-      "claude-fable-5",
+      model("claude"),
       "--output-format",
       "stream-json",
       "--verbose",
@@ -199,7 +271,7 @@ async function runCodex(prompt: string): Promise<string> {
     args: [
       "exec",
       "--model",
-      "gpt-5.5",
+      model("codex"),
       "--dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox",
       "--output-last-message",
       file,