docs(plans): 2026-08-21 pragent update design
- Repo opt-in (.pr-review.json:enabled) replaces AI-REVIEW/AI-USAGE labels. - Token humanization (fmt_tokens), multi-provider equivalent cost (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok), richer review summary (walkthrough + risk verdict + test coverage), trivial/info severity levels, per-PR merge confidence 1-5. - Defers reachability severity demotion, rules-mining from feedback, and heavy infra (sequence diagrams, T-rex, cross-repo) to future work.
This commit is contained in:
claude
@@ -0,0 +1,411 @@
|
||||
# pragent — Update Design
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** 2026-08-21
|
||||
**Status:** Approved (brainstorm, 2026-08-21)
|
||||
**Replaces:** none — additive + behavioral. Existing `docs/plans/2026-08-04-pragent-design.md` stays authoritative on architecture.
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem
|
||||
|
||||
The pilot has been live long enough to surface pain that the original design didn't
|
||||
cover:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Two labels to remember.** `AI-REVIEW` (gate) + `AI-USAGE` (opt-in for the
|
||||
cost block) are per-PR. Every new contributor reads the README wrong at least
|
||||
once. Reviews that the team *wanted* are skipped because nobody labeled; reviews
|
||||
we *don't* want still run because the label is sticky.
|
||||
2. **Token numbers are unreadable.** `Total Tokens: 2071025 in / 17303 out`
|
||||
requires a mental carry. The pilot already measures the tokens; the rendering
|
||||
just doesn't help.
|
||||
3. **Cost is anchored on one provider.** The pilot runs free (headroom/glm-5.2)
|
||||
but the only equivalent-cost line is Claude Sonnet. We can't answer "what would
|
||||
this have cost on GPT / Gemini / Grok?" without running the CLI on a different
|
||||
model.
|
||||
4. **The PR summary is operational, not useful.** A lens-fanout run posts
|
||||
`Multi-lens review of repo#index (sha X). Lenses: security,perf. Findings:
|
||||
critical=0 high=1 medium=2 low=1.` That tells a reviewer *how the bot worked*,
|
||||
not *what they should look at*. Real products post a risk verdict, a
|
||||
file-by-file walkthrough, and a test-coverage note.
|
||||
5. **Triage noise is the dominant failure mode** in every competitor (CodeRabbit,
|
||||
Qodo, Greptile, DoorDash). We already address most of it (severity_floor,
|
||||
per-file cap, cross-lens agreement, tone-strip), but two cheap wins are left on
|
||||
the table: a per-PR *merge confidence* badge, and a richer severity scale that
|
||||
includes `trivial` / `info` (CodeRabbit's pattern).
|
||||
|
||||
This update also distills lessons from a 30-article survey of AI code review
|
||||
products (CodeRabbit, Qodo/Merge + PR-Agent, Greptile, GitHub Copilot code
|
||||
review, Gemini Code Assist, qodo-ai/pr-agent, anc95/ChatGPT-CodeReview, Sourcery,
|
||||
Danger, plus the security literature around the April 2026 prompt-injection
|
||||
disclosures). Where we already match the state of the art, this update notes it
|
||||
and moves on; where a competitor's pattern is genuinely better, it lands here.
|
||||
|
||||
## Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
| Question | Decision | Why |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Trigger | `.pr-review.json:enabled` on the PR's base branch | Repo opt-in replaces labels. No per-PR manual step. Trust stays on base. |
|
||||
| Default when `.pr-review.json` is absent | Disabled | Explicit opt-in. Mirrors "labels fully removed." |
|
||||
| Cost model | Always render when usage data is present | Drop the `report_usage` parameter + `AI-USAGE` label + `PRAGENT_USAGE_ALWAYS` env. |
|
||||
| Token rendering | `1,234,567 (1.2M)` | Python `f"{n:,}"` + short suffix only when `n ≥ 1000`. |
|
||||
| Multi-provider cost | Markdown table in the collapsible usage block | Replaces the single Sonnet line. Default compare set: Sonnet, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Grok 4.5. |
|
||||
| Summary depth | Add `walkthrough` / `risk_verdict` / `test_coverage` to the agent JSON; Python fallback for lens synthesis | Agent produces the rich text; Python derives the same three when the lens fan-out is engaged. |
|
||||
| Severity scale | Extend from 4 → 6 levels: add `trivial` + `info` | Matches CodeRabbit. Backward compat (unknown → medium). |
|
||||
| Merge confidence | 1–5 integer in the review header. Python-computed. | Stole the badge idea from Greptile. |
|
||||
| Reachability demotion | Defer | Needs the security graph. Note in §7. |
|
||||
| Rules mining from feedback | Defer | `feedback_harvest` / `feedback_analyze` exist; distillation is a separate effort. |
|
||||
| Sequence diagrams / T-rex / cross-repo | Skip | Too heavy for the pilot. |
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Label removal + repo opt-in
|
||||
|
||||
### `.pr-review.json` schema delta
|
||||
|
||||
```diff
|
||||
{
|
||||
+ "enabled": true,
|
||||
"focus": [...],
|
||||
"exclude_paths": [...],
|
||||
...
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
`enabled` is a top-level boolean, default `false`, read from the **base branch**
|
||||
(unchanged trust rule — `fetch_repo_config(ref=base_ref)` already handles this).
|
||||
|
||||
### Webhook behavior (`pilot/webhook_server.py`)
|
||||
|
||||
- Remove constants `AI_REVIEW_LABEL`, `AI_USAGE_LABEL`. Remove
|
||||
`_labels_have_ai_review`. Remove the `report_usage` plumbing from
|
||||
`_handle_pull_request` and `_run_review`.
|
||||
- New helper `is_repo_enabled(api, repo, ref, token) -> bool` in `webhook_server.py`
|
||||
(or reused via `fetch_repo_config` — see below). `False` on any failure
|
||||
(404, parse error, missing key, malformed value). Logs the reason to stderr.
|
||||
- `_handle_pull_request` order of operations:
|
||||
1. `action in SKIP_ACTIONS` → `200 ignore`
|
||||
2. base_ref present + fetch config
|
||||
3. `if not config.get("enabled")` → `200 "skip (repo not opted in)"`
|
||||
4. claim in-flight slot
|
||||
5. thread off `_run_review`
|
||||
- Pre-claim gate keeps opted-out repos from consuming concurrency slots on
|
||||
bursts. One extra `GET contents/.pr-review.json` per PR event (404 for
|
||||
unconfigured repos) — negligible.
|
||||
|
||||
### `pilot/ai_review.py` cleanup
|
||||
|
||||
- Delete `AI_REVIEW_LABEL`, `AI_USAGE_LABEL` constants.
|
||||
- Delete `pr_has_label()` helper (its only call sites were the AI-USAGE
|
||||
re-reads at render time).
|
||||
- Drop the `report_usage: bool` parameter from `review_pr()`. Always render
|
||||
the collapsible usage block when `usage` is not None.
|
||||
- Remove the two `PRAGENT_USAGE_ALWAYS` references (env reads).
|
||||
- Extend `parse_repo_config()` to extract `enabled` (validate is bool,
|
||||
default False).
|
||||
- Extend `effective_config()` to preserve `enabled` through the style-defaults
|
||||
merge.
|
||||
|
||||
### Docs
|
||||
|
||||
- `README.md`: rewrite "Label a PR `AI-REVIEW`" + "add the AI-REVIEW label" to
|
||||
"commit `.pr-review.json: {"enabled": true}` to the default branch." Drop the
|
||||
AI-USAGE paragraph. Update the flow diagram.
|
||||
- `pilot/README-webhook.md`: replace onboarding steps. Drop the per-PR label
|
||||
ceremony.
|
||||
- `pilot/README.md` (CI-step path): if it still references labels, remove.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Token humanization
|
||||
|
||||
New helper in `pilot/ai_review.py`:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
def fmt_tokens(n: int | None) -> str:
|
||||
"""1234567 -> '1,234,567 (1.2M)'; 0 -> '0'; <1000 -> comma-form; None -> '?'."""
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Rules:
|
||||
- `None` → `"?"`.
|
||||
- `n < 1000` → `f"{n:,}"` (no short suffix — most findings have ~tens of tokens).
|
||||
- `1000 ≤ n < 1_000_000` → `f"{n:,} ({n/1000:.1f}K)"`, drop trailing `.0`.
|
||||
- `1_000_000 ≤ n < 1_000_000_000` → `f"{n:,} ({n/1_000_000:.1f}M)"`.
|
||||
- else `...B`.
|
||||
- Negative inputs → `"?"` (defensive — never expected from usage dicts).
|
||||
|
||||
Apply in:
|
||||
- `pilot/ai_review._render_collapsible_usage` — input, output, reasoning,
|
||||
cache_read, cache_write, total.
|
||||
- `pilot/ai_review.inline_comment_body` — the `🪙 ~N tok (...)` per-finding
|
||||
line.
|
||||
|
||||
Tests: `test_fmt_tokens` golden vectors — `0`, `42`, `999`, `1000`, `1234`,
|
||||
`1_234_567`, `1_234_567_890`, `None`, `-1`.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Multi-provider cost in usage section
|
||||
|
||||
### `pilot/cost_model.PRICES` — extend with real published rates
|
||||
|
||||
Source: Anthropic platform docs, OpenAI pricing, Gemini API pricing, xAI docs.
|
||||
Fetched 2026-08-21. Numbers in USD per million tokens.
|
||||
|
||||
| key | input | output | cache_write | cache_read |
|
||||
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
|
||||
| `claude-opus-5` | 5.00 | 25.00 | 6.25 | 0.50 |
|
||||
| `claude-sonnet-5` | 2.00 | 10.00 | 2.50 | 0.20 |
|
||||
| `claude-haiku-4-5` | 1.00 | 5.00 | 1.25 | 0.10 |
|
||||
| `gpt-5` | 1.25 | 10.00 | 1.25 | 0.125 |
|
||||
| `gpt-5-mini` | 0.25 | 2.00 | 0.25 | 0.025 |
|
||||
| `gemini-2.5-pro` | 1.875 | 12.50 | 1.875 | 0.1875 |
|
||||
| `gemini-2.5-flash` | 0.30 | 2.50 | 0.30 | 0.03 |
|
||||
| `grok-4.5` | 2.00 | 6.00 | 2.00 | 0.30 |
|
||||
| `grok-4.3` | 1.25 | 2.50 | 1.25 | 0.20 |
|
||||
|
||||
Notes on derivation:
|
||||
- Gemini 2.5 Pro publishes a tiered range (`$1.25–$2.50` in, `$10–$15` out,
|
||||
`$0.125–$0.25` cached). Midpoints are taken for a single line; the
|
||||
`compare_against` field lets a repo override per-key if precision matters.
|
||||
- Providers without a separate cache_write charge (OpenAI, Gemini, Grok) set
|
||||
`cache_write = input` so the existing `cost()` formula continues to work
|
||||
without a branch on provider.
|
||||
- `cost_target` (the highlighted single line) and `compare_against` (the table)
|
||||
are independent fields — see §3.2.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.1 Render
|
||||
|
||||
Replace the single `**Est. cost on {provider}**: $X.XX` line in
|
||||
`_render_collapsible_usage` with a compact markdown table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
**Equivalent cost on paid providers** (this run's measured tokens):
|
||||
|
||||
| Provider | Cost |
|
||||
|---|---:|
|
||||
| Claude Sonnet 5 | $4.32 |
|
||||
| GPT-5 | $2.71 |
|
||||
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | $4.04 |
|
||||
| Grok 4.5 | $4.32 |
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Sort cheapest-first. Skip rows whose cost is `$0.00`. Bold the row matching
|
||||
`cost_target` (the user-selected highlight).
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.2 Config
|
||||
|
||||
`.pr-review.json`:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"enabled": true,
|
||||
"cost_target": "claude-sonnet-5",
|
||||
"compare_against": ["claude-sonnet-5", "gpt-5", "gemini-2.5-pro", "grok-4.5"]
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
`parse_repo_config()`:
|
||||
- Validate each key exists in `PRICES`. Drop unknowns to stderr (keeps
|
||||
`cost_model._resolve_price_target`'s typo-reporting consistent).
|
||||
- Cap the list at `CONFIG_MAX_LIST_ITEMS` (12).
|
||||
- Default when absent: `["claude-sonnet-5", "gpt-5", "gemini-2.5-pro",
|
||||
"grok-4.5"]`.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.3 Tests
|
||||
|
||||
`tests/pilot/test_cost_model.py`:
|
||||
- Add equivalent-cost golden vectors against the new price keys.
|
||||
- Update `test_observed_report_prices_every_model` and
|
||||
`test_report_renders_every_requested_model` to cover the new keys.
|
||||
- Add `test_compare_against_parsing` (valid / unknown / over-cap / missing).
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Richer review summary
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.1 Schema additions (agent prompts + `SYSTEM_PROMPT`)
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"walkthrough": [
|
||||
"file X: does Y",
|
||||
"file Z: refactors W"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"risk_verdict": "Medium risk: changes auth middleware without adding tests.",
|
||||
"test_coverage": "No tests for behavioral change in pilot/foo.py."
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Rules (added to `.opencode/agents/pragent.md`, each lens agent `.md`, and the
|
||||
ollama `SYSTEM_PROMPT`):
|
||||
- `walkthrough`: 2–6 bullets, file- or change-grouped, plain prose (no
|
||||
severity emoji). Skip if the diff is one obvious line.
|
||||
- `risk_verdict`: exactly one line. Lead with `Low|Medium|High|Critical risk:`
|
||||
followed by a concrete reason grounded in the diff.
|
||||
- `test_coverage`: short string. One of
|
||||
`Tests added` / `Tests changed` / `No tests for behavioral change` /
|
||||
`No test files in repo` / a repo-specific free-text override from
|
||||
`instructions`.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.2 Parsing
|
||||
|
||||
Extend `parse_review_output(text)` and the lens fan-out's synthetic-text
|
||||
builder (`pilot/opencode_review.run_lenses_review`) to emit these three
|
||||
fields in the final JSON block. Empty defaults preserve backward compat with
|
||||
agents that haven't been re-deployed yet.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.3 Python fallback (when fields are empty)
|
||||
|
||||
The multi-lens fan-out already synthesizes the findings JSON in Python today;
|
||||
add a `_synthesize_summary_fields(findings, diff) -> dict` helper that
|
||||
computes:
|
||||
- `walkthrough`: group `merged` findings by `path`, one bullet per path
|
||||
containing the peak severity emoji and the first-problem truncated to ~80
|
||||
chars. If `merged` is empty, list `changed_files(diff)` with the size of
|
||||
the diff as the body ("`pilot/foo.py` — +12 lines").
|
||||
- `risk_verdict`: from `sev_counts` and `_multi_lens` flags:
|
||||
- any critical → `Critical risk: <N> critical finding(s).`
|
||||
- any high → `High risk: <N> high finding(s).`
|
||||
- any medium → `Medium risk: <N> medium finding(s) (<lens> lens).`
|
||||
- else `Low risk: clean or minor nits only.`
|
||||
- `test_coverage`: scan `changed_files(diff)` with `is_test_path()`. Three
|
||||
buckets:
|
||||
- any test path changed alongside non-test paths → `Tests added` (or
|
||||
`Tests changed`).
|
||||
- non-test paths present, no test path → `No tests for behavioral change in
|
||||
<first non-test path>.`
|
||||
- no test paths at all and non-test paths present → `No tests for
|
||||
behavioral change in <first non-test path>.` (same as above; the
|
||||
distinction "no test files in repo" needs a tree scan — keep it simple
|
||||
for v1).
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.4 Render
|
||||
|
||||
Extend `format_review_body()` to render three new sections between
|
||||
`### Summary of Changes` and `### Key Risks & Concerns`:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
### Risk Verdict
|
||||
🟡 Medium risk: changes auth middleware without adding tests.
|
||||
|
||||
### Walkthrough
|
||||
- `pilot/foo.py` — adds retry logic for transient Gitea API errors
|
||||
- `pilot/bar.py` — extracts shared header parser
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Coverage
|
||||
No tests for behavioral change in pilot/foo.py.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Each section renders an `_No <section> provided._` placeholder when empty
|
||||
(matches the existing `Summary of Changes` / `Key Risks & Concerns` collapse
|
||||
behavior).
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.5 Tests
|
||||
|
||||
`tests/pilot/test_ai_review.py`:
|
||||
- Golden vectors for each new section (provided + Python-fallback paths).
|
||||
- Combined body test: summary + walkthrough + risk + tests + table +
|
||||
collapsible usage all render in the right order with no orphan markers.
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Stolen ideas
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.1 Merge confidence 1–5 (Greptile)
|
||||
|
||||
New function `merge_confidence(findings: list[dict]) -> int` in
|
||||
`pilot/ai_review.py`:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
start at 5
|
||||
-1 if any critical finding
|
||||
-1 if any high finding
|
||||
-1 if any medium finding
|
||||
-1 if any _multi_lens: True finding (cross-lens agreement = harder to dismiss)
|
||||
clamp to [1, 5]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Render in `REVIEW_HEADER`:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
🤖 **AI Review** · pragent pilot · glm-5.2:cloud · `abc12345` · Merge confidence: 3/5 🟡
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Badge map: 5/4 = 🟢, 3 = 🟡, 2 = 🟠, 1 = 🔴.
|
||||
|
||||
Tests: golden vectors for all 5 score branches.
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.2 Add `trivial` + `info` severity levels (CodeRabbit)
|
||||
|
||||
Extend `SEVERITIES` and `SEVERITY_RANK`:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
SEVERITIES = ("critical", "high", "medium", "low", "trivial", "info")
|
||||
SEVERITY_RANK = {"info": -1, "trivial": 0, "low": 1, "medium": 2, "high": 3, "critical": 4}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Update `_severity_badge` emoji map (`trivial`/`info` = ⚪). Update
|
||||
`apply_repo_config` threshold semantics so `medium+` still means what it
|
||||
meant (only `low` ranks below `medium` is unchanged). Update agent prompts
|
||||
to permit emitting `trivial` / `info`. Backward compat: `_normalize_finding`
|
||||
already coerces unknown severities to `medium`.
|
||||
|
||||
Tests: existing `test_apply_repo_config` cases keep passing; add
|
||||
`test_severity_threshold_respects_new_levels` and
|
||||
`test_unknown_severity_normalizes_to_medium`.
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.3 Reachability-aware severity demotion — DEFER
|
||||
|
||||
CodeRabbit Security demotes severity by one level when a vulnerability is
|
||||
unreachable / only theoretically exploitable. We can't compute reachability
|
||||
without the security graph. Document in §7 and revisit when a Code-Rabbit-
|
||||
style graph index lands.
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.4 Rules mining from feedback — DEFER
|
||||
|
||||
`pilot/feedback_harvest.py` + `pilot/feedback_analyze.py` exist. A future
|
||||
`pilot/learn_rules.py` cron job will distill FP-vote signals into
|
||||
`.pr-review.learned.json` and merge into `instructions`. Document in §7.
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.5 Sequence diagrams / T-rex / cross-repo — SKIP
|
||||
|
||||
Too heavy for the pilot's footprint. Document in §7.
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Deferred (not in this update)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Reachability-aware severity demotion.** Requires a Code-Rabbit-style
|
||||
reachability graph over the repo.
|
||||
- **Rules mining from feedback.** A `learn_rules.py` job that consumes the
|
||||
feedback DB and writes `.pr-review.learned.json`. `feedback_harvest` /
|
||||
`feedback_analyze` are the substrate.
|
||||
- **Sequence diagrams / T-rex sandbox / cross-repo review.** Three features
|
||||
Greptile / Qodo highlight. All require either a code graph index (heavy
|
||||
precompute) or sandbox runtime execution (separate infra). Skip.
|
||||
- **Per-finding confidence scores.** Greptile publishes a 0–5 score on every
|
||||
comment. We deliberately stay on severity — confidence on findings
|
||||
requires the agent to self-estimate, which is unreliable without a
|
||||
cross-lens consensus check. The merge-confidence badge (§6.1) is the
|
||||
higher-signal version of the same idea.
|
||||
- **`Fix with Cursor` handoff.** Greptile ships a one-click "send all findings
|
||||
to Cursor/Codex/Claude Code." Our users *are* the bot's host, not an
|
||||
external coding IDE. Skip.
|
||||
- **Cost-model batch column.** The cost model already prices batch at 50%;
|
||||
the PR-review path will never use it (stateful agent loops aren't
|
||||
batchable). Keep the column for completeness, no new work.
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Risk register
|
||||
|
||||
| Risk | Mitigation |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Webhook floods the API with `.pr-review.json` fetches on a large owner | One `GET` per PR event, mostly 404. Documented acceptable. The dedicated `/health` already reports inflight count. |
|
||||
| `.pr-review.json:enabled` set on a high-traffic repo creates surprise review load | The README will document the opt-in explicitly. The webhook's `PRAGENT_MAX_CONCURRENT_REVIEWS` already bounds the spawn rate. |
|
||||
| New severity levels (`trivial` / `info`) break repos that filter on `medium+` | `apply_repo_config` threshold semantics preserve the rank of `low` and `medium`. `trivial` ranks below `low`, `info` below `trivial`. New filters naturally include them. |
|
||||
| Token humanization loses precision a maintainer relies on | `fmt_tokens` always keeps the full comma-separated number; the short suffix is a parenthetical. |
|
||||
| Multi-provider cost table is misleading when a provider has tiered pricing | `compare_against` is a per-repo override. The README documents the midpoints for Gemini 2.5 Pro. |
|
||||
| Agent prompt change for `walkthrough` / `risk_verdict` / `test_coverage` causes regressions on deployed agents | Python fallback (§4.3) synthesizes the same fields when the agent omits them. Backward compat preserved by empty defaults. |
|
||||
| Removing `report_usage` breaks the `review_pr` tests that pass it | Test updates are part of this update. |
|
||||
| Removing labels breaks users who still apply them | No Gitea API change is needed; the labels just stop being read. A one-paragraph README note acknowledges the change. |
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Prioritized implementation list
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Item | Section | Effort |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| P0 | Label removal + repo opt-in (`enabled` in `.pr-review.json`) | §1 | M |
|
||||
| P1 | `fmt_tokens()` helper + apply in usage + inline | §2 | S |
|
||||
| P1 | Multi-provider cost table (extend `PRICES`, render table, `compare_against`) | §3 | M |
|
||||
| P2 | Richer summary (`walkthrough` / `risk_verdict` / `test_coverage`) schema + Python fallback | §4 | L |
|
||||
| P2 | `trivial` + `info` severity levels | §6.2 | S |
|
||||
| P3 | Merge confidence 1–5 in review header | §6.1 | S |
|
||||
| P3 | README + `pilot/README-webhook.md` rewrite | §1, §10 | S |
|
||||
| P3 | Test updates across all sections | (each) | M |
|
||||
|
||||
P0 first because it changes webhook behavior (must land with the repo-opt-in
|
||||
docs so onboarding isn't broken mid-rollout). P1 items are independent and
|
||||
small — ship together. P2 ships the user-visible summary improvement.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user