Marcos
30d2a3d7da
Skills — the primary now loads conditionally (each one is input tokens), per a load table in pragent.md: - attention-tiering: classify every PR trivial/lite/full/oversized BEFORE reading anything, and cap file reads, linter runs and subagent fan-out per tier. This is the cost governor; the other skills defer to its budget. - linter-playbook: per-ecosystem detect-and-run commands scoped to changed files, the never-install rule, and how to turn a diagnostic into a finding instead of pasting tool output. - security-lens: the inline security checklist for when @security isn't worth delegating, built around a source -> sink test each finding must pass. - malicious-change: hostile-PR detection — injection aimed at the reviewer, install/CI-time hooks, obfuscated payloads, dependency confusion, logic backdoors. Complements the runtime containment added in the previous commit: that stops the agent being hijacked, this makes it report the attempt. - comment-craft: how to write problem/fix/suggestion so a maintainer can act in one read, and what to cut. pilot/cost_model.py — prices a review against published Claude and OpenAI rates (fetched 2026-08-18). Prompt sizes are measured from the factory files rather than guessed; per-tier workloads come from the tiering budgets. The model is explicit about the thing that actually dominates an agent loop: the whole conversation is resent every step, so caching moves ~2.3x of the bill. Blended over a 5/35/55/5 mix with caching on: ~$0.61/PR on Opus 5 or GPT-5.6 Sol, ~$0.24 on Sonnet 5 or Terra, ~$0.12 on Haiku 4.5, ~$0.02 on Luna. At 350 PRs/month that's ~$212 / ~$85 / ~$43 / ~$8.50. Tests: 101 -> 122. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01B11e8TZZxJyzHW7jj7KWUN
5.7 KiB
pragent
An extensible, forge-agnostic PR review framework. Not a product — a toolkit that teams extend with their own review dimensions.
Status: design approved; framework build deferred. A pilot is live on
glm-5.2:cloud with two delivery paths:
- Central webhook service (preferred, least per-repo setup): a Gitea
user-level webhook posts PR events to an always-on in-cluster service that
gates on the
AI-REVIEWlabel. Onboarding a repo = addpragent-botcollaborator + create the label + label a PR. Seepilot/README-webhook.md. - CI-step (legacy): a per-repo Gitea Action fetches the reviewer script at
runtime. See
pilot/README.md.
The framework design remains at
docs/plans/2026-08-04-pragent-design.md;
the pilot is its bootstrap and will be superseded by pragent review when the
framework build resumes.
What it is
pragent runs as a CI step. It reads a pull request, decides how much attention the
change deserves, runs the analyzers that apply, and posts ranked findings back to the
forge.
pragent init # one-time repo scan → .pragent/profile.yml (committed, reviewable)
pragent review # the CI step: tier → analyze → aggregate → publish
pragent explain # why did this PR get this tier / these findings?
pragent replay # re-run a past PR against a new prompt or model (the eval loop)
pragent doctor # config, credentials, and adapter health
Why not CodeRabbit / Greptile / Qodo
Those are good products with fixed review dimensions and per-seat pricing. pragent
targets the case where a platform team needs to add its own dimensions — an internal
compliance rule, a service-catalog ownership check, a house performance idiom — without
forking a vendor's reviewer. Cost lands in the same range (~$25/dev/month at 350 PRs/mo
for 20 devs), but the analyzers, the data, and the analytics are yours.
Attention tiers
Every PR is classified before any expensive work happens. Deterministic rules decide first; an ambiguous case gets one cheap model call as tie-breaker.
| Tier | What it means | Cost/PR |
|---|---|---|
trivial |
lockfile bumps, generated code, docs typos | ~$0.005 |
lite |
small change, no risk paths | ~$0.08 |
full |
the default for real changes | ~$0.80–2.00 |
oversized |
too big to review whole; structural summary + deep pass on the hot subset | ~$5 ceiling |
Every tier decision records why, so a surprising outcome is explainable rather than mysterious.
What it costs
The pilot runs on glm-5.2:cloud through the on-network headroom proxy, so today it
bills nothing per token — but the token work is real, and pilot/cost_model.py
prices it against published API rates. The factory's prompt sizes are measured from
the files in this repo; the per-tier workloads come from the attention-tiering
budgets. Blended over a 5/35/55/5 tier mix, prompt caching on:
| Model | per PR | 350 PRs/month |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5 / GPT-5.6 Sol | ~$0.61 | ~$212 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 / GPT-5.6 Terra | ~$0.24 | ~$85 |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | ~$0.12 | ~$43 |
| GPT-5.6 Luna | ~$0.02 | ~$8.5 |
Run python3 pilot/cost_model.py --help for other mixes and PR volumes. The
dominant cost is the agent loop resending its own context each step, not the diff —
turning prompt caching off multiplies the bill by ~2.3x, which is why the tiering
skill caps steps, file reads, and subagent fan-out per tier.
Extension points
Five, all documented in the design doc. Teams override or add; nobody forks.
- Analyzers — drop a YAML + prompt in
.pragent/analyzers/, or install from npm - Forge adapters — Gitea, GitLab, GitHub, local diff
- Tier policy — thresholds and the path risk map, per repo or per org
- Profile enrichers — extend what
pragent initlearns about a repo - Emitter sinks — JSONL by default, OpenTelemetry, or your own
Org config can lock keys, so a repo cannot quietly disable the security analyzer.
Design principles
- Polyglot by construction. Language knowledge lives in the repo profile, not in the reviewer. A new language is a profile change, not a core change.
- One shared prompt prefix. All analyzers for a PR share a byte-identical cached prefix. This is what makes fan-out affordable; it is enforced, not hoped for.
- Everything is traceable. Tier reasons, token counts, cost, latency, and finding outcomes are recorded per run. False-positive rate is measurable per analyzer.
- Fail open. A budget ceiling or an analyzer crash yields a partial review with a clear note, never a blocked pipeline with no explanation.
- The reviewed code is untrusted input. The reviewer runs an agent over a
branch anyone with PR access can write. So it holds no credentials in its
environment, the checkout is stripped of files an agent runtime would load as
instructions, PR-authored text is fenced as data, and reviewer config is read
from the base branch. See "Threat model" in
pilot/README-webhook.md.
Stack
TypeScript + Node, built on the pi agent SDK.
Shipped as an npm package and an OCI image, so CI runners need no local Node install.
Roadmap
- Walking skeleton — local diff, one analyzer, rules-only tiering
- Gitea end to end — adapter, Woodpecker step, PR comments, status checks
- Profile + full tier —
pragent init, shared-prefix caching, analyzer fan-out - Extensibility hardening — plugin loading, config layering,
explain/replay - Second forge — GitLab adapter, Jenkins recipe
- Analytics maturity — OTel export, feedback loop, eval harness
License
TBD.