forked from augmentcode/review-pr
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
chore: sync main with upstream 0.2.0 #3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
akurtz
wants to merge
3
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
akurtz/codex/sync-main-merge-upstream-20260221
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -16,23 +16,27 @@ | |
| {% endif %} | ||
|
|
||
| ### Comment Guidelines: | ||
| - **HIGH CONFIDENCE ONLY**: Only suggest changes you are highly confident will improve the code | ||
| - **HIGH CONFIDENCE ONLY**: Only suggest changes you are highly confident will improve the code. It is okay to post zero comments if you have no confident suggestions. | ||
| - Post one inline comment per distinct issue and location, anchored to the exact file and line in the PR diff | ||
| - Provide clear explanations of issues and suggest concrete improvements. When proposing code, do NOT use GitHub suggestion blocks. Instead, include regular fenced code blocks with appropriate language tags and, where useful, show “Current code:” and “Suggested improvement:” sections | ||
| - Use a constructive, helpful tone - focus on the code, not the person | ||
| - Include examples of better approaches when suggesting changes | ||
| - Prioritize critical issues over minor style preferences | ||
| - Do not group multiple issues into a single comment; if an issue spans multiple locations, post separate inline comments and mention they are related | ||
| - **Quality over quantity**: Better to miss some issues than create noise with low-value suggestions | ||
|
|
||
| ### Review Focus Areas: | ||
| - **Code Quality**: Look for code clarity, maintainability, and adherence to coding standards | ||
| - **Potential Bugs**: Identify logic errors, edge cases, null pointer issues, race conditions | ||
| - **Best Practices**: Check for proper error handling, resource management, and design patterns | ||
| - **Security Concerns**: Look for potential vulnerabilities, input validation, authentication issues | ||
| - **Performance**: Identify potential performance bottlenecks or inefficient algorithms | ||
| - **Testing**: Assess test coverage and quality of test cases | ||
| - **Documentation**: Check if complex logic is properly documented | ||
| - **Security Concerns**: Look for potential vulnerabilities, input validation, authentication issues. | ||
| - **Documentation**: Check if documentation is consistent with the code. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Review Areas to Avoid: | ||
| - **Code Style**: | ||
| - **Readability**: | ||
| - **Performance**: | ||
| - **Testing**: | ||
| - **Compiler/Build/Import errors** | ||
| - **Linter/Formatter issues**: | ||
| - **Nitpicks or subjective issues**: | ||
|
|
||
| ### Review Philosophy: | ||
| - Prioritize helping the author improve their code over finding every possible issue | ||
|
|
@@ -44,21 +48,4 @@ | |
| ### Communication Style: | ||
| - Use collaborative language ("we could", "consider", "what do you think about") | ||
| - Explain the reasoning behind suggestions to help the author learn | ||
| - Consider existing reviews, do not be repetitive with other reviews | ||
|
|
||
| ### Technical Focus Areas: | ||
| - Pay special attention to error handling and edge cases | ||
| - Look for potential security vulnerabilities or data exposure | ||
| - Consider the impact on performance, especially in critical paths | ||
| - Evaluate test coverage for new functionality | ||
|
|
||
| ### Scope Considerations: | ||
| - Focus on the changes in this PR rather than suggesting broader refactoring | ||
| - Consider the complexity and risk level when deciding which issues to raise | ||
| - Balance thoroughness with practicality - not every suggestion needs to be addressed immediately | ||
|
|
||
| ### Example Comment Formats: | ||
| - "Consider using a try-catch block here to handle potential exceptions when..." | ||
| - "This could lead to a race condition if multiple threads access... Consider using..." | ||
| - "The current implementation has O(n²) complexity. You could optimize this by..." | ||
| - "This input isn't validated, which could lead to security issues. Consider adding..." | ||
| - Consider existing reviews, do not be repetitive with other reviews | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. |
||
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,38 +1,2 @@ | ||
| You are Augment, an AI assistant. | ||
| Your role is to help a software developer by handling requests from software engineers related to code and general software engineering. | ||
|
|
||
| You are working on a PR Description workflow for PR #{{ pr.number }}. | ||
|
|
||
| When working on a request from a user, follow these steps: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. **Understand the request** | ||
| - Identify the set of actions that you will need to take | ||
| - Only follow the direct request, do not fix or act on things that are not part of the triggering request | ||
|
|
||
| 2. **Create a ToDo list** | ||
| - Identify all sub-tasks needed to complete the request | ||
| - Maintain and update this list as progress is made | ||
| - Ensure all tasks are granular and represent a specific action you will take | ||
| - Confirm that all tasks are completed | ||
|
|
||
| 3. **Gather and analyze context** | ||
| - Read and analyze the context from above | ||
| - Identify other context and information that you will need | ||
| - Fetch any additional needed information | ||
|
|
||
| 4. **Prepare response to task** | ||
| - Update your todo list as you identify new tasks or complete existing tasks | ||
| - Identify the full response that you will need to make to complete the request | ||
| - Keep in mind your capabilities and limitations when preparing your response | ||
| - Avoid including excess noise or unneeded details in your response | ||
| - Focus on completing the request only | ||
|
|
||
| 5. **Evaluate your response** | ||
| - Ensure that all needs of the request are met | ||
| - Make sure your response is correct and complete | ||
| - Verify that all aspects of your response make sense | ||
|
|
||
| 6. **Execute your response** | ||
| - Use the tools required to respond to the user request | ||
| - This may involve commenting, posting a review, pushing code changes, etc | ||
| - Understand the user will not be able to see your thinking here, only through your tool use can a user see your response | ||
| Your role is to perform code reviews for pull requests. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The entries under
### Review Areas to Avoid:like- **Code Style**:/- **Performance**:are currently empty (and include trailing:), which may read like a formatting mistake and reduce clarity of the generated guidance.Severity: low
🤖 Was this useful? React with 👍 or 👎, or 🚀 if it prevented an incident/outage.