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>

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
-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
-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
-the intended result was achieved.
+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 verdict and nothing else: `Approved` when
+the template's answer is yes, `Changes requested` otherwise. The mark in front
+of it is added when posting, so write the words alone; 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 `Changes requested`, 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 the intended
+result was achieved.
 
-The review 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 `file:line` and title of an issue
-with the what, why, and how inside; the same for each strength, each
-recommendation, the reasoning, and any compliance notes. Details blocks are
-top-level, never inside a list item, because Gitea breaks them there.
+Every finding that belongs to one line of the diff goes on that line instead of
+into the body. Write those to `${ANCHORS_PATH}` as a JSON array, each entry
+`{"path": "<path from the repository root>", "line": <number>, "side": "new" |
+"old", "body": "<the finding>"}`.
+`side` is `new` for a line in the head file and `old` for one only in the base
+file; `line` is that file's own line number, and it must be a line the diff
+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

@@ -59,21 +59,84 @@ 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.
-const VERDICTS: Record<string, string> = {
-  Yes: "APPROVED",
-  No: "REQUEST_CHANGES",
-  "With fixes": "REQUEST_CHANGES",
+// A review is posted whenever the agent wrote one, whether a review request or
+// a comment asked for it. 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, matched whole; anything unexpected only comments, never
+// approves. The mark in front is added here, so it is never part of the match.
+const REVIEW_DIR = await Deno.makeTempDir();
+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(`${at}.body: expected the finding`);
+    }
+    return { path, line, side, body };
+  });
+}
+
+async function readAnchors(): Promise<Anchor[]> {
+  const written = await Deno.readTextFile(ANCHORS_PATH).catch(() => null);
+  return written === null ? [] : parseAnchors(written);
+}
+
 async function postResult(body: string): Promise<void> {
-  if (EVENT !== "pull_request") return postComment(body);
-  const [verdict] = body.split("\n", 1);
-  await gitea(REVIEWER_TOKEN, `repos/${REPO}/pulls/${INDEX}/reviews`, {
-    body: stripAnsi(body),
-    event: VERDICTS[verdict.trim()] ?? "COMMENT",
+  const review = await Deno.readTextFile(REVIEW_PATH).catch(() => null);
+  if (review === null) {
+    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),
+        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([]);
   });
 }
 
@@ -118,6 +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),