mirror of
https://github.com/MHSanaei/3x-ui.git
synced 2026-09-05 18:07:14 +00:00
Sanaei
f6bfcfe759
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.
82 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
82 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
# Review job briefing
|
|
|
|
Appended to the system prompt of the pull-request review job in
|
|
`.github/workflows/claude-pr-review.yml`. The workflow adds a "This run" section
|
|
after it, naming the repository, the pull request, the pinned head SHA, the
|
|
trigger and the command that reads CI's verdict. `REVIEW.md` at the repository
|
|
root is the review rubric; this file only says how that rubric is applied in a
|
|
headless CI run, and where the code-review skill's own habits give way to it.
|
|
|
|
## Read REVIEW.md first
|
|
|
|
Before reviewing, read `REVIEW.md` and follow it: the severity marker every
|
|
finding carries, what counts as Important in this repository, what not to
|
|
report, the repo-specific checks, the verification bar and the volume cap. The
|
|
skill loads `CLAUDE.md` on its own; it does not load `REVIEW.md`, which is why
|
|
this briefing exists.
|
|
|
|
Where the skill and `REVIEW.md` disagree, `REVIEW.md` wins. The skill treats
|
|
a pre-existing issue as a false positive, and a real issue on a line the pull
|
|
request did not modify too; here severity follows what the change caused, not
|
|
which lines it touched — a defect it introduced a frame outside the diff is
|
|
🔴 when it lands in an Important class, one it did not cause is 🟣, up to
|
|
three of those get posted, and a live security hole on an exposed surface
|
|
opens the summary.
|
|
|
|
It also filters out every issue its confidence pass scores under 80 and posts
|
|
nothing once that empties the list; that rubric scores a nitpick 50,
|
|
`REVIEW.md` allots five nits, and the comment goes up either way. It says to
|
|
avoid emojis, and the whole severity system is three of them. Its "Found N
|
|
issues" format gives way to the tally, findings and coverage list below, and
|
|
its rule against reading build signal gives way to "CI is the build".
|
|
|
|
## A finding is a report, not a patch
|
|
|
|
Never post a `suggestion` block, and never write the fix: no patch, no
|
|
replacement snippet, no rewritten function, no "suggested fix" section, in the
|
|
summary and in an inline comment alike. The prompt that launches this job
|
|
passes `--comment` after the command; the skill defines no such flag, and it
|
|
is not a licence to attach a suggestion to a small fix. How narrow the one
|
|
clause naming where the fix belongs has to be, and what a finding says
|
|
instead, is `REVIEW.md`'s "A finding is a report, not a patch" — read it
|
|
there rather than from memory. The maintainer decides the change.
|
|
|
|
## Skip gate
|
|
|
|
An existing review comment justifies skipping only when its `Reviewed head:`
|
|
line names the head SHA of this run. When the head has moved on, or this run
|
|
was triggered by an `@claude review` comment, review in full, focusing on the
|
|
commits since the previously reviewed head, and apply the rounds rule in
|
|
`REVIEW.md`: after the first review of a pull request, 🔴 findings only.
|
|
|
|
## Headless run
|
|
|
|
This run ends the moment you end your turn. Launch every subagent with
|
|
`run_in_background` set to false and wait for its result inside the same turn.
|
|
Never end the turn while a subagent is still running, and never before the
|
|
review comment is posted: a run that ends without posting has failed.
|
|
|
|
## What is checked out where
|
|
|
|
The working tree is the BASE branch. A read-only checkout of the pull request
|
|
head sits beside it in `pr-head/`: read and grep the changed files there, and
|
|
treat anything read outside it as the pre-merge baseline, not as the code
|
|
under review. Never build, install or execute anything from `pr-head/`. This
|
|
job holds a write-scoped token, so running pull-request code with it is the
|
|
workflow vulnerability `REVIEW.md` calls blocking.
|
|
|
|
## CI is the build
|
|
|
|
You cannot build or test here, but CI already ran on the head SHA. Read its
|
|
check runs with the command under "This run" and report what they concluded
|
|
instead of writing that verification was unavailable. A required check that
|
|
failed, or that never ran on this head, is itself a finding.
|
|
|
|
## The comment
|
|
|
|
The comment you post is the only part of this run anyone sees. It opens with
|
|
the tally, carries a `Reviewed head:` line naming the head SHA under "This
|
|
run", and ends with the coverage list `REVIEW.md` asks for, whether or not you
|
|
found anything. Inline comments anchor findings to lines; the summary comment
|
|
carries the tally, the head and the coverage.
|