Marcos
6e3a9eb5b0
Replace the single Python model-call reviewer with an opencode agent
factory. A primary 'pragent' agent reads a brief (title/body/diff/config/
prior reviews), inspects the checked-out repo, runs the repo's own linters
via bash, loads review-methodology + findings-schema skills, and emits a
{summary, findings} JSON with per-finding severity/path/line/problem/fix/
suggestion/reference. Dormant security/tests/perf subagent lenses fan out
only on large/risky diffs (lean by default).
pilot/opencode_review.py: fetches the repo archive at the head sha into a
temp workdir, writes .pragent/brief.md, drops the factory, runs
'opencode run --pure --agent pragent --dir <workdir>' headlessly. Isolates
HOME (shared, warmed), strips ANTHROPIC_* env (leaked host vars caused
ProviderModelNotFoundError), stdin=DEVNULL (opencode blocks on stdin),
maps the bare OLLAMA_MODEL to the provider-prefixed ref. No Gitea I/O —
ai_review.review_pr parses + anchors + posts (reuses all v2 logic/tests).
PRAGENT_ENGINE=opencode (default) selects it; =ollama keeps the legacy
direct-call path. Verified end-to-end: posts a real review with a summary
section, inline [CRITICAL]/[HIGH] comments + apply-able suggestions +
reference links, and the sha dedupe marker. 49 tests pass.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.4 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 makes a ```suggestion apply-able in Gitea.
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.