Honor author replies

action.yml

@@ -20,11 +20,6 @@ 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
@@ -45,7 +40,6 @@ 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

@@ -20,18 +20,20 @@ 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. Run the project's checks on the head and treat a
+against the PR's base and head, and make its complete output your final response
-failure as at least Important. Check the whole repository against the code rules
+instead of the short comment style above. Run the project's checks on the head
-at the end of this prompt, not only the diff; a violation is at least Important
+and treat a failure as at least Important. Check the whole repository against
-even when the diff did not cause it. Write the complete review, and nothing
+the code rules at the end of this prompt, not only the diff; a violation is at
-else, to the file `${REVIEW_PATH}`: it is posted verbatim as a pull request
+least Important even when the diff did not cause it. Your final response is
-review from the bot account, and your final response is not posted at all. The
+posted verbatim as a pull request review from the bot account, so it is the
-file's first line must be exactly the template's verdict and nothing else:
+review text and nothing else: no narration about what you did, verified, or are
-`Yes`, `No`, or `With fixes`. `Yes` approves and the other two request changes;
+about to post, whether you reviewed yourself or relayed a reviewer subagent. Its
-any other first line is posted as a plain comment, which wastes the run. Minor
+first line must be exactly the template's verdict and nothing else: `Yes`, `No`,
-issues alone never block, and neither does a finding the author has answered in
+or `With fixes`. `Yes` approves and the other two request changes; any other
-the comment history below as intended or a false alarm, once the code or docs
+first line is posted as a plain comment, which wastes the run. Minor issues
-make that clear. When the verdict is not `Yes`, the second line names what must
+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

run.ts

@@ -20,13 +20,6 @@ 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();
@@ -59,11 +52,9 @@ async function postComment(body: string): Promise<void> {
   });
 }
 
-// A pull request event is a review request, so the review is posted instead
+// A pull request event is a review request, so the response becomes a review.
-// of the response. It comes through a file, because a final chat message picks
+// Its first line is the verdict; anything unexpected only comments, never
-// up narration while a file's first line is written on purpose. That line is
+// approves.
-// 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",
@@ -72,12 +63,9 @@ const VERDICTS: Record<string, string> = {
 
 async function postResult(body: string): Promise<void> {
   if (EVENT !== "pull_request") return postComment(body);
-  const review = await Deno.readTextFile(REVIEW_PATH).catch(() => {
+  const [verdict] = body.split("\n", 1);
-    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(review),
+    body: stripAnsi(body),
     event: VERDICTS[verdict.trim()] ?? "COMMENT",
   });
 }
@@ -123,7 +111,6 @@ 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),
@@ -147,7 +134,7 @@ async function runClaude(prompt: string): Promise<string> {
       "--print",
       "--dangerously-skip-permissions",
       "--model",
-      model("claude"),
+      "claude-fable-5",
       "--output-format",
       "stream-json",
       "--verbose",
@@ -212,7 +199,7 @@ async function runCodex(prompt: string): Promise<string> {
     args: [
       "exec",
       "--model",
-      model("codex"),
+      "gpt-5.5",
       "--dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox",
       "--output-last-message",
       file,