Skip to content

Commit 1b7880c

Browse files
justfinethankujustfinethanku
committed
[infra] Make Claude PR review manual and use Haiku
1 parent 6dc4b5e commit 1b7880c

1 file changed

Lines changed: 65 additions & 68 deletions

File tree

‎.github/workflows/claude-review.yml‎

Lines changed: 65 additions & 68 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1,12 +1,20 @@
11
name: Claude PR Review
22

33
on:
4-
pull_request_target:
5-
types: [opened, synchronize, reopened]
6-
pull_request_review_comment:
7-
types: [created]
8-
issue_comment:
9-
types: [created]
4+
workflow_dispatch:
5+
inputs:
6+
pr_number:
7+
description: Pull request number to review
8+
required: true
9+
type: number
10+
extra_focus:
11+
description: Optional extra review focus for this run
12+
required: false
13+
type: string
14+
15+
concurrency:
16+
group: claude-pr-review-${{ inputs.pr_number }}
17+
cancel-in-progress: true
1018

1119
permissions:
1220
contents: read
@@ -16,91 +24,80 @@ permissions:
1624

1725
jobs:
1826
claude-review:
19-
if: >
20-
github.event_name == 'pull_request_target' ||
21-
((github.event_name == 'issue_comment' &&
22-
contains(github.event.comment.body, '@claude')) &&
23-
contains('justfinethanku,matthallett1,adrienneaguirre,kaleab27', github.event.comment.user.login)) ||
24-
((github.event_name == 'pull_request_review_comment' &&
25-
contains(github.event.comment.body, '@claude')) &&
26-
contains('justfinethanku,matthallett1,adrienneaguirre,kaleab27', github.event.comment.user.login))
2727
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
28+
timeout-minutes: 20
29+
2830
steps:
2931
- name: Checkout repository
3032
uses: actions/checkout@v4
3133
with:
3234
fetch-depth: 0
3335

34-
- name: Checkout PR branch
36+
- name: Fetch PR branch
3537
env:
3638
GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
39+
PR_NUMBER: ${{ inputs.pr_number }}
3740
run: |
38-
# Determine PR number based on event type
39-
if [ "${{ github.event_name }}" = "issue_comment" ]; then
40-
PR_NUMBER="${{ github.event.issue.number }}"
41-
else
42-
PR_NUMBER="${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}"
43-
fi
41+
set -euo pipefail
4442
45-
# Fetch PR head via refs/pull/N/head (works for both fork and same-repo PRs)
46-
git fetch origin "pull/${PR_NUMBER}/head:refs/remotes/origin/pr-head"
43+
gh pr view "$PR_NUMBER" \
44+
--repo "$GITHUB_REPOSITORY" \
45+
--json state,isDraft,title,url
4746
48-
# Get the branch name the action expects and check it out locally
49-
BRANCH=$(gh pr view "${PR_NUMBER}" --json headRefName -q .headRefName)
50-
git checkout -B "${BRANCH}" refs/remotes/origin/pr-head
47+
pr_state=$(gh pr view "$PR_NUMBER" \
48+
--repo "$GITHUB_REPOSITORY" \
49+
--json state \
50+
--jq '.state')
5151
52-
# Point origin to the fork repo so claude-code-action can fetch the branch.
53-
# gh pr view doesn't expose clone_url, so use the REST API directly.
54-
FORK_URL=$(gh api "repos/${{ github.repository }}/pulls/${PR_NUMBER}" --jq '.head.repo.clone_url')
55-
if [ -n "$FORK_URL" ]; then
56-
git remote set-url origin "${FORK_URL}"
52+
if [ "$pr_state" != "OPEN" ]; then
53+
echo "PR #$PR_NUMBER is not open."
54+
exit 1
5755
fi
5856
59-
- uses: anthropics/claude-code-action@v1
57+
git fetch origin "pull/$PR_NUMBER/head:pr-$PR_NUMBER"
58+
git checkout "pr-$PR_NUMBER"
59+
60+
- name: Run Claude review
61+
uses: anthropics/claude-code-action@v1
6062
with:
6163
github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
6264
anthropic_api_key: ${{ secrets.ANTHROPIC_API_KEY }}
63-
track_progress: true
64-
claude_args: '--allowedTools "mcp__github_inline_comment__create_inline_comment,Bash(gh pr comment:*),Bash(gh pr diff:*),Bash(gh pr view:*),Bash(gh api:*),Bash(git diff:*),Bash(git log:*),Bash(git show:*),Read,Glob,Grep"'
6565
prompt: |
66+
REPO: ${{ github.repository }}
67+
PR NUMBER: ${{ inputs.pr_number }}
68+
EXTRA REVIEW FOCUS: ${{ inputs.extra_focus }}
69+
6670
You are reviewing a contribution to Open Brain (OB1), an open-source
6771
persistent AI memory system. Read CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, and
6872
SOUL.md (if it exists) for full project context.
6973
7074
Review this PR for:
71-
1. **Alignment** — Does this contribution fit OB1's mission? Is it a
72-
capture pathway, retrieval pathway, schema extension, dashboard, or
73-
teaching-through-building contribution?
74-
2. **Clarity** — Will a user with the stated prerequisites actually be
75-
able to follow the instructions and get a working result?
76-
3. **Completeness** — README has prerequisites, numbered steps, and
77-
expected outcome? metadata.json looks right?
78-
4. **Safety** — No credentials, no destructive SQL, no core schema
79-
modifications, no local MCP servers (must use remote Edge Functions)?
80-
5. **Value** — Does this add something meaningfully different from
81-
existing contributions?
82-
6. **Design patterns** — Does this follow OB1's established patterns?
83-
Check for: direct Supabase insert or MCP ingest endpoint (not
84-
custom servers), remote Edge Functions (not local Node.js),
85-
Row Level Security on new tables, JSONB metadata fields,
86-
environment variables for credentials (not hardcoded).
87-
7. **Scope fit** — Is this appropriately sized for OB1, or is it
88-
growing into its own project? Red flags: own package.json with
89-
many dependencies, doesn't interact with the thoughts table,
90-
needs independent deployment, or introduces its own auth system.
91-
If it seems too big, suggest it could be a standalone project
92-
that integrates with OB1 instead.
93-
94-
Before writing your review, read any existing PR comments and
95-
review discussion. If maintainers or contributors have already
96-
flagged issues, asked questions, or discussed changes, acknowledge
97-
them in your review rather than duplicating. Build on the existing
98-
conversation instead of starting from scratch.
75+
1. Alignment with OB1's mission and contribution categories
76+
2. Clarity for contributors following the README instructions
77+
3. Completeness of README, metadata, and user guidance
78+
4. Safety: no secrets, no destructive SQL, no core schema breakage,
79+
no local MCP servers
80+
5. Value: whether this adds something meaningfully useful
81+
6. Design patterns: direct Supabase insert or MCP ingest endpoint,
82+
remote Edge Functions, RLS on new tables, JSONB metadata fields,
83+
env vars for credentials
84+
7. Scope fit: whether this belongs in OB1 or is drifting into its
85+
own standalone project
9986
100-
Be constructive and welcoming. If a contribution needs work, explain
101-
what specifically needs to change. If it looks good, approve the PR.
102-
103-
Important: The mechanical checks (file structure, metadata validation,
104-
SQL safety) are handled by a separate CI job. Focus your review on the
105-
things that require judgment — clarity, alignment, value, design
87+
The mechanical checks are already handled by a separate CI job.
88+
Focus on judgment-heavy review: clarity, alignment, value, design
10689
patterns, scope fit, and quality.
90+
91+
Review behavior:
92+
- Use `gh pr diff` and `gh pr view` for PR context.
93+
- Use inline comments only for specific, actionable findings.
94+
- Submit one final GitHub PR review with `gh pr review`.
95+
- Be conservative with approvals. Approve only when there are no
96+
substantive concerns left.
97+
- If there are blocking issues, request changes and explain them
98+
clearly.
99+
- If feedback is non-blocking, submit a comment review instead of
100+
cluttering the thread with extra top-level comments.
101+
- Do not output the review as chat text. Put the feedback on GitHub.
102+
claude_args: |
103+
--model haiku --allowedTools "mcp__github_inline_comment__create_inline_comment,Bash(gh pr diff:*),Bash(gh pr review:*),Bash(gh pr view:*),Bash(git diff:*),Bash(git status:*)"

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)