Two failures from the same afternoon, both in the bot workflow.
The review of #6272 ran for 34 minutes across four subagents and posted
"No issues found. Checked for bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance." — three
lines for a 73-file diff. The agent had written a per-area coverage
summary in its own last turn and then dropped it on the floor, because
the code-review skill's comment template carries findings and nothing
else. A comment that cannot distinguish a thorough clean review from a
run that died early is not evidence, so REVIEW.md now states what the
posted comment must show and the system prompt points the run at it.
The same run logged 67 permission denials. Only the inline-comment MCP
tool was named in --allowedTools, so `gh api`, writing the diff to a
scratch file, and reading it back were all auto-denied: agents spent
turns hunting for a writable directory, and the openapi.json copy check
REVIEW.md calls blocking could not be run at all ("gh api was
unavailable in this sandbox"). Name the tools the review actually uses.
The conflict resolution on #6243 resolved both conflicted files
correctly and was then rejected by its own guard: "Edits outside the
conflicted set: CLAUDE.md". The agent never touched CLAUDE.md — it had
Edit rights on exactly two paths and no shell. claude-code-action
deletes and restores CLAUDE.md, .claude/, .mcp.json and friends from
the base branch before it runs, because the PR head is untrusted, and
that restore is what dirtied the tree. Name that set once, exclude it
from the stray-edit check, and hand back rather than resolve when a
conflict lands inside it — the restore would silently overwrite the
resolution and stage the base copy.
The four pull_request_target review jobs in claude-bot.yml (Senior
Developer / QA / Tester / Arbiter and their shared rubric) are replaced by
a single review job running the official code-review plugin - the same
skill behind Anthropic's hosted Code Review and the review workflow
/install-github-app generates. The hosted service needs a Team/Enterprise
organisation, so the plugin runs in CI on the maintainer's subscription
instead: inline findings on PR open and ready-for-review, plus manual
(re-)review when the owner or a collaborator comments "@claude review".
The official example triggers on pull_request, but GitHub withholds
secrets from fork runs and essentially every 3x-ui pull request is from a
fork, so the job keeps the lanes' pull_request_target posture: the
workspace is the base revision and nothing from the pull request is
checked out or executed.
What the lanes uniquely knew is distilled into REVIEW.md, handed to the
skill via --append-system-prompt and pinned by bot_context_test.go the way
repo-context.md is: the runtime.Runtime dispatch rule, migration and
upgrade safety, the four-step route contract chain including the unchecked
docs copy, the i18n rule, the three link implementations, and the
wire-format verification bar. The mention job now ignores "@claude
review" comments on pull requests so the review trigger does not also
wake the generic bot, and the lane-only rubric file goes with the lanes.
The remaining prompts also lose their tone micro-rules (no emoji, no
exclamation marks, no filler) and the workflow's comment banners are
removed.
Sanaei