Compare commits
1 Commits
main
...
review-file
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| c8f325e048 |
@@ -20,20 +20,18 @@ they bear on the task, and push from there.
|
||||
|
||||
For a `pull_request` event, 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
|
||||
instead of the short comment style above. Run the project's checks on the head
|
||||
and treat a failure as at least Important. Check the whole repository against
|
||||
the code rules at the end of this prompt, not only the diff; a violation is at
|
||||
least Important even when the diff did not cause it. Your final response is
|
||||
posted verbatim as a pull request review from the bot account, so it is the
|
||||
review text and nothing else: no narration about what you did, verified, or are
|
||||
about to post, whether you reviewed yourself or relayed a reviewer subagent. Its
|
||||
first line must be exactly the template's verdict and nothing else: `Yes`, `No`,
|
||||
or `With fixes`. `Yes` approves and the other two request changes; any other
|
||||
first line is posted as a plain comment, which wastes the run. Minor issues
|
||||
alone never block, and neither does a finding the author has answered in the
|
||||
comment history below as intended or a false alarm, once the code or docs make
|
||||
that clear. When the verdict is not `Yes`, the second line names what must
|
||||
against the PR's base and head. Run the project's checks on the head and treat a
|
||||
failure as at least Important. Check the whole repository against the code rules
|
||||
at the end of this prompt, not only the diff; a violation is at least Important
|
||||
even when the diff did not cause it. Write the complete review, and nothing
|
||||
else, to the file `${REVIEW_PATH}`: it is posted verbatim as a pull request
|
||||
review from the bot account, and your final response is not posted at all. The
|
||||
file's first line must be exactly the template's verdict and nothing else:
|
||||
`Yes`, `No`, or `With fixes`. `Yes` approves and the other two request changes;
|
||||
any other first line is posted as a plain comment, which wastes the run. Minor
|
||||
issues alone never block, and neither does a finding the author has answered in
|
||||
the comment history below as intended or a false alarm, once the code or docs
|
||||
make that clear. When the verdict is not `Yes`, the second line names what must
|
||||
change in one line, addressed to the author; the author's own agent picks the
|
||||
fixes up, so never ask `@bot` to make them. For UI changes, check that the
|
||||
result is aligned, clean, and pixel-perfect, and that included screenshots prove
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -59,9 +59,11 @@ async function postComment(body: string): Promise<void> {
|
||||
});
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// A pull request event is a review request, so the response becomes a review.
|
||||
// Its first line is the verdict; anything unexpected only comments, never
|
||||
// approves.
|
||||
// A pull request event is a review request, so the review is posted instead
|
||||
// of the response. It comes through a file, because a final chat message picks
|
||||
// up narration while a file's first line is written on purpose. That line is
|
||||
// the verdict; anything unexpected only comments, never approves.
|
||||
const REVIEW_PATH = `${await Deno.makeTempDir()}/review.md`;
|
||||
const VERDICTS: Record<string, string> = {
|
||||
Yes: "APPROVED",
|
||||
No: "REQUEST_CHANGES",
|
||||
@@ -70,9 +72,12 @@ const VERDICTS: Record<string, string> = {
|
||||
|
||||
async function postResult(body: string): Promise<void> {
|
||||
if (EVENT !== "pull_request") return postComment(body);
|
||||
const [verdict] = body.split("\n", 1);
|
||||
const review = await Deno.readTextFile(REVIEW_PATH).catch(() => {
|
||||
throw new Error(`no review was written to ${REVIEW_PATH}`);
|
||||
});
|
||||
const [verdict] = review.split("\n", 1);
|
||||
await gitea(REVIEWER_TOKEN, `repos/${REPO}/pulls/${INDEX}/reviews`, {
|
||||
body: stripAnsi(body),
|
||||
body: stripAnsi(review),
|
||||
event: VERDICTS[verdict.trim()] ?? "COMMENT",
|
||||
});
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -118,6 +123,7 @@ async function renderPrompt(): Promise<string> {
|
||||
GITEA_API_URL: API,
|
||||
GITEA_REPOSITORY: REPO,
|
||||
ISSUE_INDEX: INDEX,
|
||||
REVIEW_PATH,
|
||||
};
|
||||
const template = await Deno.readTextFile(
|
||||
new URL("prompt.md", import.meta.url),
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user