Marcos
76b6752f48
Gitea 1.26.x has no GitHub-style 'Apply suggestion' button — a ```suggestion fence is just an unknown-language code block, so chroma does not highlight it and there is no apply control. Switch inline_comment_body to wrap the suggested fix in a fence tagged with the file's language (new _lang_for_path helper, .java→java, .ts→typescript, .py→python, ...), so Gitea syntax-highlights the code. No capability lost (there was never an apply button on this Gitea version). Correct the docstrings/skills/README that wrongly claimed an apply-button was rendered. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.5 KiB
name, description
| name | description |
|---|---|
| review-methodology | pragent review methodology — severity rubric, what to report vs skip, anchoring rules, and how to honor repo focus. Load this before reviewing a PR. |
pragent review methodology
Severity rubric
- critical — exploitable security bug, data loss/corruption, or a crash on a normal input path. Must fix before merge.
- high — correctness bug on a real input path, broken contract, or a missing test for security/error behavior. Should fix before merge.
- medium — likely bug on an edge case, missing test for changed logic, or a risky pattern that isn't broken yet. Worth fixing.
- low — minor risk, stale expectation, or a defensive improvement. Nice to have.
Report vs skip
Report: correctness bugs, security problems, risky changes, missing tests for changed behavior, breaking API/contract changes, N+1/O(n²) in hot paths.
Skip: praise, nitpicks, pure formatting/style, personal preference,
speculative "what if" without a concrete trigger, anything already covered in
prior_reviews.
Cap at ~15 findings, highest severity first. Quality over quantity — an empty findings list for a clean diff is a correct result.
Anchoring (for inline comments)
Each finding's line MUST be a line that exists in the POST-CHANGE version of
path:
- a context line (unchanged, shown with a leading space in the diff), or
- an added line (shown with a leading
+).
Never anchor on a removed (-) line — it has no post-change line number.
If you're unsure of the exact line, use the closest context line you CAN see in
the diff. A misanchored finding becomes a summary bullet instead of an inline
comment, so correct anchoring is what gets a finding shown inline with its
suggested-fix code block (language-highlighted) rather than demoted to a bullet.
Honoring repo config
If .pr-review.json is present, honor it:
focus— weight these areas higher, but never ignore a critical issue outside them.exclude_paths— skip findings in these paths.languages— hint to the primary languages; pick matching linters.instructions— house conventions / compliance language; treat as binding reviewer rules.
Linters are a signal, not the verdict
Run the repo's own typecheck/lint on changed files, but translate their output
into human findings — a raw TS2322 is not a review comment. Correlate
diagnostics with the diff; ignore diagnostics in files the PR didn't touch.