A webhook wakes for any PR on a repo whose default branch carries a .pr-review.json with "enabled": true. The service checks the repo out at the PR's head commit, reads the changed files and the code around them, runs the repo's own linters, and posts a review anchored to real lines.

See it work: pragent-demo PR #1 — a PR with planted defects, and the review it drew: 9 findings, 3 critical, all anchored inline.

**[CRITICAL]** search_notes builds its SQL by string concatenation: owner and
term come from request['query'] and are spliced directly, so a term like
`' OR 1=1 --` reads every row in the table.

Fix: Parameterise owner and term with placeholders and a real LIKE pattern.

🪙 ~362 tok (11% · attributed output)

Why this exists

CodeRabbit, Greptile and Qodo 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. The analyzers, the data, and the analytics are yours.

It is also self-hosted end to end: the model endpoint is a config value, so the code never has to leave your network.

Status

A pilot is live and reviewing real PRs. The full framework (pragent init, tiering as code, analyzer fan-out, explain / replay) is designed but not built — see docs/plans/.

What works today:

a central webhook service, so onboarding a repo is add the bot + commit .pr-review.json:enabled = true
whole-repo context: the reviewer reads callers and types, not just the hunk
inline comments with language-highlighted suggested fixes, anchored to post-change lines and validated in Python before posting
per-commit dedupe, and prior reviews fed back so a re-push synthesises rather than repeats
.pr-review.json for per-repo focus and house rules (also the opt-in flag)
token-usage reporting on every review, measured from opencode step_finish events
containment against hostile PR content (see Security)

Not yet: status checks, fail-close, attention tiering enforced in code (it is currently a skill the agent follows), multi-model routing.

How a review runs

PR opened on repo with `.pr-review.json:enabled = true`
   │  Gitea webhook (HMAC-verified, body-capped, concurrency-bounded)
   ▼
review_pr()
   1. opt-in    .pr-review.json:enabled=true on base? if not, skip.
   2. dedupe    already reviewed this exact sha? stop.
   3. fetch     diff + .pr-review.json from the BASE branch
   4. checkout  repo archive at head sha → temp workdir
   5. sanitize  delete author-controlled agent-instruction files
   6. brief     .pragent/brief.md, untrusted parts explicitly fenced
   7. review    opencode agent: read code, run linters, emit findings JSON
   8. anchor    validate every line against the diff's post-change lines
   9. post      inline comments + summary, as pragent-bot

Steps 1, 3, 8 and 9 are deterministic Python. The model's only job is step 7 — producing correct findings. It never talks to Gitea, and a finding whose line does not validate becomes a summary bullet rather than a misplaced comment.

Setup

Onboarding a repo, once the service is running for that owner:

add pragent-bot as a Write collaborator
commit .pr-review.json: {"enabled": true} to the repo's default branch
open a PR

Standing up the service itself — the webhook, the image, the Gitea SSRF allow-list, the per-owner webhook registration — is in pilot/README-webhook.md. A legacy per-repo CI-step path is in pilot/README.md.

The model endpoint is supplied at runtime via PRAGENT_MODEL_BASE_URL; the committed opencode.json carries a placeholder.

Per-review token spend, latency and equivalent cost are shipped to a self-hosted Langfuse, split into ollama and claude environments so the two spend stories stay separate: pilot/README-langfuse.md. Emission is a silent no-op unless LANGFUSE_HOST and the key pair are set.

Extending it

The review "factory" is .opencode/ — agent definitions and skills as plain Markdown. Adding a review dimension is dropping a file in, not writing code:

Add	How
A review lens	`.opencode/agents/<name>.md` + one allow-list line in `pragent.md`
Domain knowledge	`.opencode/skills/<name>/SKILL.md`, referenced from the load table
Per-repo rules	`.pr-review.json` in the repo being reviewed

Shipped skills: attention-tiering (the cost governor), review-methodology, findings-schema, linter-playbook, security-lens, malicious-change, comment-craft.

Security

The reviewer runs an autonomous agent with shell access over a checkout of the PR author's branch, and its bot account holds a Write credential. Anyone who can open a PR can therefore put arbitrary text in front of the model and arbitrary files on its disk — the setup exploited in the April 2026 disclosures against Claude Code Security Review, Gemini CLI Action and Copilot Agent.

Four controls, none of which rely on the model behaving:

No credentials in the agent's environment. The subprocess environment is built from an allow-list, not inherited. There is nothing to exfiltrate.
No author-controlled instruction files on disk. Nested AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules, a repo opencode.json — all deleted before the agent starts, so a PR cannot ship its own system prompt. They are still reviewed, as data.
Untrusted-data framing. PR text and diffs are fenced; the agent reports injection attempts as critical findings instead of following them.
Reviewer config comes from the base branch, so a PR cannot rewrite the rules it is judged by.

Plus: tar-slip guards on the archive, a non-root container, and bounded concurrency. Full threat model and residual risks: pilot/README-webhook.md.

What it costs

The pilot runs against a self-hosted model and bills nothing per token, but the token work is real. pilot/cost_model.py prices it against published API rates, calibrated against runs measured through the usage telemetry (OBSERVED_RUNS in that file — append to it, don't guess). Tokens are summed from opencode step_finish events per review.

Two measured reviews of a ~1100-line PR in this repo: 28 and 31 agent steps, ~2.1M input tokens each, zero cache reads or writes. The demo repo's PR, same tier: 126K tokens.

Model	this repo, ~1100-line PR	demo repo PR
Claude Opus 5	~$10.79	~$0.71
Claude Sonnet 5	~$4.32	~$0.28
Claude Haiku 4.5	~$2.16	~$0.14

Three things that estimate wrong if you skip them:

The loop resends its context every step. Cost is roughly quadratic in step count, not linear in diff size. This is what attention-tiering exists to cap.
Repository size dominates diff size. The 16x gap above is the same reviewer on the same tier — the difference is how much repo there was to read.
Prompt caching is worth about a third of the bill and is not currently happening on this stack. Check cache_read before budgeting.

python3 pilot/cost_model.py --help      # other mixes, volumes, models

Development

python3 -m pytest tests -q    # 137 tests, stdlib only, no network

The pilot is stdlib-only Python by design — it runs from a bare python:slim image with the scripts mounted, and has no dependency resolution to go wrong at review time.

License

Not yet chosen. Until one is added, no reuse rights are granted.

pilot eval judges test 1788201461