Skip to content

feat: improve AI reviewer assumption handling to reduce spam #13

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
LearningCircuit merged 4 commits into from
Nov 9, 2025
Merged

feat: improve AI reviewer assumption handling to reduce spam #13

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
7063536
feat: improve AI reviewer assumption handling to reduce spam
LearningCircuit Nov 9, 2025
2a5702e
debug: temporarily enable debug output to diagnose empty response
LearningCircuit Nov 9, 2025
25303d7
debug: add API response logging when content is empty
LearningCircuit Nov 9, 2025
7a4f150
feat: add structured review format with verdict and overall feedback
LearningCircuit Nov 9, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
14 changes: 13 additions & 1 deletion ai-reviewer.sh
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -218,7 +218,18 @@ PROMPT="You are an expert code reviewer. Please analyze this code diff and provi

Focus on security, performance, code quality, and best practices.

Focus on high-value issues. Style suggestions are welcome if impactful, but not minor optimizations. Be concise and dense - use bullet points for clear structure. Avoid repetition - in summary sections, only repeat critical issues (security, bugs, breaking changes). If flagging issues about code not visible in the diff, clearly state what you're assuming and why. For non-critical improvements, consider approving with recommendations rather than requesting changes.
Focus on high-value issues. Style suggestions are welcome if impactful, but not minor optimizations. Be concise and dense - use bullet points for clear structure. Avoid repetition - in summary sections, only repeat critical issues (security, bugs, breaking changes). Important: Focus on issues directly visible in the diff. If you cannot verify something from the diff alone (e.g., missing context, unclear defaults, code not shown):
- Default: Skip the issue to avoid spam
- Only ask for clarification if it's critical (security vulnerabilities, breaking bugs, data loss risks): \"Cannot verify [X] from diff - please confirm [specific question]\"
- If making an inference about non-critical issues, explicitly label it: \"Inference (not verified): [observation]\"

Review Structure:
1. Start with a short overall feedback summary (1-2 sentences)
2. Then provide detailed findings
3. End with one of these verdicts ONLY:
- \"✅ Approved\" (no issues found)
- \"✅ Approved with recommendations\" (minor improvements suggested, but not blocking)
- \"❌ Request changes\" (critical issues that must be fixed before merge)

Required JSON format:
{
Expand All @@ -231,6 +242,7 @@ Instructions:
1. Respond with a single valid JSON object
2. Include the Friendly AI Reviewer footer with heart emoji at the end of the review field
3. For labels_added, prefer existing repository labels when possible
4. Always end your review with one of the three verdict options listed above before the footer

Code to review:
$PROMPT_PREFIX
Expand Down