Repository navigation
Conversation
…iew (PROF-16542) - Reviewer by what the range changes: Sphinx for gates and production code, with at most one deep run per PR; /code-review for fix ranges and for doc-, skill- or test-only ranges. A budget of about $20-30 of agentic review per PR; the user decides above it. - Triage: a gate bypass is never downgraded below High; a repeated defect class is fixed as a class; re-review stops when it finds only Low findings in the fixes. - The dead-code and misspelling self-check moves here from AGENTS.md, next to the other judgment checks it belongs with. - New last step: tell the user each mistake made twice and each point explained twice, with a proposed home, without editing those files. AGENTS.md says an agent should propose such corrections, but nothing triggered it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Rows apply top to bottom, and the gate row includes fixes to gates, this skill and the AGENTS.md review rules. A fix to a gate, or a change that weakens the review policy, no longer falls into a lighter row. - Without Sphinx, gate ranges get /code-review at high effort. - The self-checks are their own step for every change, not an appendix to the fix-flow sentence; "empty files left without callers" is back. - Re-review stops at only Medium or Low findings in the fixes; the unfixed ones go into the report. - The marker's --session names the session that ran the review. - AGENTS.md describes what the skill now does. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Scan-Build Report
Bug Summary
Filter Results by FileReports
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CI Test ResultsRun: #42689072087 | Commit:
Status Overview
Legend: ✅ passed | ❌ failed | ⚪ skipped | 🚫 cancelled Summary: Total: 32 | Passed: 32 | Failed: 0 Updated: 2026-11-09 20:26:09 UTC |
Codex Review Summary: ✅ CompletedThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 3eea0c40c6
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| | --- | --- | | ||
| | Gates and trust boundaries, including fixes to them: hooks, `review-marker.py`, the `utils/*-policy.py` files, CI checks, this skill, the AGENTS.md review rules | Sphinx (`/sphinx review range $MB..$(git rev-parse HEAD) --report-json <path>`), standard effort; at most one `--effort=deep` run per PR, on the final candidate | | ||
| | Other production code | Sphinx, standard effort | | ||
| | Only fixes to a range already reviewed | `/code-review` medium, on the fix range only | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a previously reviewed branch is changed by fixes, this row reviews only the fix range, but step 5 then writes a marker for the entire final MB..HEAD diff. The earlier review applies to the pre-fix candidate, so interactions between the fixes and unchanged hunks can remain unreviewed while the hooks accept the marker as covering the final branch; require a review of the final full range or a marker mechanism that explicitly composes both reviews.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L500-L504
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| every turn, so run this skill for large reviews from a fresh session where the harness | ||
| allows; that session writes the marker. | ||
|
|
||
| 3. **Self-checks.** In addition to the reviewer, check the diff for unused variables, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If these post-review checks find dead code, duplicated macros, or a bad comment and the agent corrects it, the resulting candidate was never reviewed: step 4 only explicitly requires re-reviewing fixes to Critical/High reviewer findings. Move these checks before step 2 or require every self-check correction to be committed and re-reviewed before the marker is written, because changing the candidate invalidates its existing evidence.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L482-L485
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| every turn, so run this skill for large reviews from a fresh session where the harness | ||
| allows; that session writes the marker. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For a large review started in the recommended fresh session, that session has no transcript of mistakes or explanations from the preceding implementation work, so it cannot perform step 7 and will silently omit repeated failures. Require a handoff of the repeated-failure list or leave that reporting step to the original session so the repository's repeated-failure feedback rule still runs.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L50-L53
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
![datadog-prod-us1-4[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/365230?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
More details
Gate fixes and edits to the review policy still select the gate-tier reviewer, and the existing marker freshness requirements remain intact. No reportable defect was identified.
🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit 3eea0c4
What does this PR do?:
Extends the
pre-pr-reviewskill:Reviewer by what the range changes. The first matching row applies:
AGENTS.mdreview rules;/code-reviewmedium;/code-reviewmedium.Without Sphinx, gate ranges get
/code-reviewhigh.Cost. About $20–30 of agentic review per PR. Above that, the agent asks the user first. Large reviews start from a fresh session.
Triage.
Self-checks. The dead-code and misspelling check moves here from
AGENTS.mdas its own step.Repeated failures (new last step). The agent tells the user in the session each mistake it made twice and each point the user explained twice, with a proposed home. It does not edit those files itself.
AGENTS.mdloses the self-check bullet and describes what the skill now does: 544 → 541 lines.Stacked on #959.
Motivation:
Step 1 of PROF-16466 showed the review cost problem. A deep Sphinx run on a full PR cost about $112. A standard run on a 3-file fix range cost about $34, most of it the orchestrating session re-reading its long context. This PR writes down the depth policy from the proposal. The triage rules come from #959: two rounds of patching single YAML cases did not converge until the check switched to a closed line grammar.
AGENTS.mdsays an agent "proposes a concise correction" when it repeats a mistake. Nothing triggered that. The new step puts the trigger at a known moment, the end of the change, and leaves the decision to the engineer (PROF-16542, AC7).Additional Notes:
gh pr create, drafts included.AGENTS.mdreview rules as gates. A change that weakens the review policy therefore always gets the gate-tier review./code-review(medium) on the first commit found 10 issues: overlapping table rows that let a gate fix fall into a lighter row, no effort level for the fallback, an unclear stop rule, a self-check scoped to fix-flow code, and a changed meaning ("empty files"). The second commit fixes all 10.How to test the change?:
python3 utils/check-skills.pybash utils/tests/test_quality_check_scripts.shdoc-writing) and edit nothingmainorigin/main, was refused low-effort review because its range contains gate changes; the session asked the userFor Datadog employees:
credentials of any kind, I've requested a security review (run the
dd:platform-security-reviewskill, or file a request via the PSEC review form).
bewairealso runs automatically on every PR.🤖 Generated with Claude Code