claude-bot.yml ran three jobs: the pull-request review, an @claude mention
responder, and a conflict resolver that committed and pushed to contributor
branches. Only the review is wanted, so the other two are gone and the file
is renamed to say what is left.
Consequences worth knowing:
- secrets.CLAUDE_BOT_PAT is no longer referenced by any workflow. It was the
only push credential handed to an agent in this repository and can now be
deleted from the repository settings.
- @claude goes unanswered everywhere. claude-issue-analyst.yml deliberately
excludes mentions (!contains(body, '@claude')) so the two jobs would not
both reply; with the mention job gone, only `@claude review` on a pull
request still reaches anything. Dropping that clause from the analyst would
restore mention answering on issues.
- The workflow display name changes, so a branch protection rule keyed on
"Claude Bot / review" has to become "Claude PR Review / review". The job
name, which is what statusCheckRollup reports, is unchanged.
The review job itself is byte-identical. The workflow-level permission drops
to issues: read, which is all the remaining job needs - it already declares
its own.
The `suggestion` blocks stopped once the briefing moved into its own file, but
the carve-out that survived — "one clause naming where the fix belongs" — was
being stretched from a location into an instruction. #6397 dictated what to
write in a comment and which existing test to copy; #6394 named the fix
outright. The clause now permits a file, a function, a symbol or a layer and
nothing about what happens there, and closes the stretch three ways: prose is
a patch the moment a verb describes the change, so is holding up an existing
symbol as the model to copy, and a clause the maintainer could apply as
written is the fix however it is punctuated.
Three rules the rubric was missing, none of which existed anywhere. A 🔴 or 🟡
says in one clause what the change did to the code it is about, the way a 🟣
already says it predates it — otherwise nothing in the comment shows the
marker was earned. A claim about a caller or a callee needs that file read:
the dispatch-rule violation this repo cares most about sits a frame outside
the diff, and the skill is told to avoid reading past the changes. And nothing
pads the comment.
The briefing's one named override aimed at a step that does not exist. The
plugin the job loads defines no `--comment` flag and mentions suggestions
nowhere, so `max --comment <target>` is inert trailing text. Replaced with the
six overrides that are real: the skill calls pre-existing issues and unmodified
lines false positives, drops every finding its confidence pass scores under 80
and then posts nothing at all (a nitpick scores 50, so that filter empties all
five nit slots), says to avoid emojis against a severity system that is three
of them, mandates a "Found N issues" format, and forbids reading build signal.
The issue analyst moves verbatim from claude-bot.yml into its own
claude-issue-analyst.yml, so claude-bot.yml now holds only the pull-request
side: review, @claude mentions and conflict resolution.
The review job's briefing was a single 2,600-character quoted string inside
claude_args, unreadable and unreviewable. It now lives in
.github/claude/review-job.md, assembled at run time with a "This run"
section that hands the reviewer the pinned head SHA, the pull request and
the exact check-runs command, and reaches the CLI through
--append-system-prompt-file. The agent-mode action sets no system-prompt
append of its own, so the file flag cannot collide with one.
Findings no longer carry the fix: REVIEW.md and the brief both forbid
suggestion blocks, patches and replacement snippets, overriding the
code-review skill's --comment step, which attaches a committable suggestion
to any small fix. A finding states what is wrong, where, what triggers it
and what breaks; the maintainer decides the change.
Sanaei