Conversation
…ation-feedback-loop Add simplification feedback loop OpenSpec change
…ation-feedback-loop Implement code review simplification feedback loop
|
Strix is installed on this repository, but we could not run this PR security review because this workspace does not have an active plan. If you'd like to continue receiving code reviews, you can add a payment method or manage billing here. |
Contributor
|
Caution Review failedPull request was closed or merged during review 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAdds a deterministic simplification feedback loop: optional per-finding simplification metadata, CLI support via --focus simplify, deterministic duplicate-intent grouping, expanded ai-bloat/AST analyzers to emit simplification findings, schema bump to 1.1, scoring neutrality support, docs/prompts updates, package/version bumps, and comprehensive tests. ChangesSimplification Feedback Loop
Estimated code review effort🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~45 minutes Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 2❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
chore(registry): publish changed modules
djm81
added
enhancement
5 tasks
![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: 2b02fdba13
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to 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 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 9
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
packages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/commands.py (1)
575-587:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winDirect
ReviewRunRequestinputs can silently drop simplify focus.
run_command()trusts a providedReviewRunRequestas-is. If a caller setsfocus_facets=("simplify",)but leaves defaultreview_focus=None, simplify mode is never passed torun_review(). Normalize or validate this at command entry.Proposed fix
from collections import defaultdict from collections.abc import Callable, Iterable -from dataclasses import dataclass +from dataclasses import dataclass, replace @@ def run_command( @@ - request = ( + request = ( request_or_files if isinstance(request_or_files, ReviewRunRequest) else _build_review_run_request( list(request_or_files or []), kwargs, ) ) + if request.review_focus is None and "simplify" in request.focus_facets: + request = replace(request, review_focus=_review_focus_from_facets(request.focus_facets)) + _validate_review_request(request)As per coding guidelines,
packages/**/src/**/*.pyshould maintain clear adapter boundaries so core upgrades do not silently break bundles.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@packages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/commands.py` around lines 575 - 587, run_command currently accepts a ReviewRunRequest and uses it raw, which lets callers set focus_facets=("simplify",) without populating review_focus so simplify mode never reaches run_review; update run_command to normalize/validate the incoming ReviewRunRequest (the ReviewRunRequest instance created or passed in) so that if request.focus_facets includes "simplify" and request.review_focus is None or empty, set request.review_focus to include the corresponding simplify mode before calling run_review (or delegate to _build_review_run_request behavior), ensuring the adapter boundary between run_command, _build_review_run_request, and run_review is preserved.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/bundles/code-review/run.md`:
- Line 32: The module-level documentation for the --focus option omits the
"simplify" value: update the --focus option description (the list that currently
shows source, tests, docs) to include simplify (i.e., add "simplify" to the
enumerated values and ensure the repeatable/mutual-exclusion wording matches the
bundle run guide), and verify the "Simplification loop" section still references
the same --focus value to keep docs consistent.
In `@docs/bundles/project/overview.md`:
- Line 85: The docs mention two different simplify-report filenames
(.specfact/code-review.json vs .specfact/code-review-simplify.json); update the
simplify prompt reference in docs/bundles/project/overview.md to match the
canonical filename used by the simplify run command and template (change the
text that says `.specfact/code-review.json` to
`.specfact/code-review-simplify.json`), and verify the specfact.08-simplify
prompt template and docs/bundles/code-review/run.md consistently reference
`.specfact/code-review-simplify.json`; if the run command or template uses the
other name instead, change that source to the canonical
`.specfact/code-review-simplify.json` so all references (overview text, run.md,
and specfact.08-simplify prompt) are identical.
In `@docs/modules/code-review.md`:
- Around line 398-415: Add the missing "simplify" facet to the canonical --focus
value list so the docs and the SKILL.md guidance stay consistent: update the
options list where --focus values are enumerated to include "simplify" (matching
the behavior described in SKILL.md and the "Simplification loop" paragraph) and
ensure any examples or CLI usage strings reference --focus simplify; search for
the symbols "--focus" and "SKILL.md" in the document to locate the list and
examples to edit.
In
`@openspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/specs/code-review-simplification-feedback/spec.md`:
- Around line 65-71: Update the `/specfact.08-simplify` spec to reference the
correct simplify artifact `.specfact/code-review-simplify.json` (used by the
simplify workflow: `--focus simplify --json --out ...`) instead of
`.specfact/code-review.json`, and ensure the description for grouping by
`intent_key` and showing related locations explicitly states it consumes
`.specfact/code-review-simplify.json`; adjust any mention in the
`/specfact.08-simplify` section so the grouping logic (by `intent_key`, then
file/domain and rule) and the one-confirmed-rewrite flow point at
`.specfact/code-review-simplify.json` to keep the spec aligned with the
implemented workflow.
In `@packages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/rules/updater.py`:
- Around line 35-36: The simplify workflow command string in
specfact_code_review.rules.updater currently points to
".specfact/code-review.json" which conflicts with the main review output; update
the command so the simplify queue writes to the dedicated simplify report path
".specfact/code-review-simplify.json" (i.e., replace the output filename in the
string literal used to generate the simplify workflow command in updater.py).
In `@packages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/runner.py`:
- Around line 240-241: The suppression check is failing on Windows paths because
it matches finding.file against a literal "/commands.py"; normalize the path
before checking by using pathlib.Path or os.path to get the filename (e.g.,
replace the endswith check with Path(finding.file).name == "commands.py" or
os.path.basename(os.path.normpath(finding.file)) == "commands.py"), then apply
the existing rule/message logic (the existing condition on finding.rule and the
"argument"/"local variable" message checks) so the noise matching is
platform-independent.
In `@packages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/scorer.py`:
- Around line 55-56: The neutralization condition currently zeros deductions for
any `dry`/`kiss` finding when `simplification_score_neutral` is true; update the
condition in scorer.py to only neutralize when the finding is a high-confidence
deterministic simplification by requiring the simplification metadata indicate
high confidence and deterministic (e.g., check
`finding.has_simplification_metadata()` and
`finding.simplification_metadata.get("confidence") == "high"` and
`finding.simplification_metadata.get("deterministic") is True`) in addition to
`finding.category in {"dry","kiss"}`, and apply the same stricter check to the
similar neutralization logic later in the file (the block around the existing
checks at lines 93-101).
In `@registry/index.json`:
- Around line 5-7: Registry index.json's "checksum_sha256" (409b0507...) does
not match the module manifest integrity checksum in
packages/specfact-project/module-package.yaml (cbae2549...), causing install
failures; compute the actual SHA-256 of the tarball for specfact-project 0.41.12
(the file named by download_url or
registry/modules/specfact-project-0.41.12.tar.gz) and then update the incorrect
entry so both places match: either replace registry/index.json's checksum_sha256
value or update the packages/specfact-project module-package.yaml integrity:
checksum field to the verified hex string, and also ensure any registry checksum
file (registry/modules/specfact-project-0.41.12.tar.gz.sha256) reflects the same
checksum in lowercase hex format.
In `@tests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_scorer.py`:
- Around line 91-100: The test currently asserts that
score_review(findings=[_dry_simplification_finding()]) yields a deduction, which
enforces non-neutral default behavior; update the test so simplification
findings are treated neutral by default—either change the assertion in
test_score_review_deducts_dry_simplification_findings_by_default to expect 100
(neutral) or explicitly pass simplification_score_neutral=True when calling
score_review (or rename the test to reflect the neutral expectation),
referencing the test function
test_score_review_deducts_dry_simplification_findings_by_default, the helper
_dry_simplification_finding, and the score_review call so callers/tests match
the intended default contract.
---
Outside diff comments:
In `@packages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/commands.py`:
- Around line 575-587: run_command currently accepts a ReviewRunRequest and uses
it raw, which lets callers set focus_facets=("simplify",) without populating
review_focus so simplify mode never reaches run_review; update run_command to
normalize/validate the incoming ReviewRunRequest (the ReviewRunRequest instance
created or passed in) so that if request.focus_facets includes "simplify" and
request.review_focus is None or empty, set request.review_focus to include the
corresponding simplify mode before calling run_review (or delegate to
_build_review_run_request behavior), ensuring the adapter boundary between
run_command, _build_review_run_request, and run_review is preserved.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: d019c4da-2eb7-4ec5-9ae3-229e2c716d1a
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
registry/modules/specfact-code-review-0.47.18.tar.gzis excluded by!**/*.gzregistry/modules/specfact-project-0.41.12.tar.gzis excluded by!**/*.gz
📒 Files selected for processing (44)
docs/bundles/code-review/overview.mddocs/bundles/code-review/rules.mddocs/bundles/code-review/run.mddocs/bundles/project/overview.mddocs/modules/code-review.mdopenspec/CHANGE_ORDER.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/.openspec.yamlopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/TDD_EVIDENCE.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/design.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/proposal.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/specs/clean-code-analysis/spec.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/specs/code-review-simplification-feedback/spec.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/specs/review-finding-model/spec.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/specs/review-run-command/spec.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/tasks.mdpackages/specfact-code-review/module-package.yamlpackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/resources/skills/specfact-code-review/SKILL.mdpackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/review/commands.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/rules/updater.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/commands.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/findings.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/runner.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/scorer.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/tools/ai_bloat_runner.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/tools/ast_clean_code_runner.pypackages/specfact-project/module-package.yamlpackages/specfact-project/resources/prompts/specfact.03-review.mdpackages/specfact-project/resources/prompts/specfact.08-simplify.mdregistry/index.jsonregistry/modules/specfact-code-review-0.47.18.tar.gz.sha256registry/modules/specfact-project-0.41.12.tar.gz.sha256registry/signatures/specfact-code-review-0.47.18.tar.sigregistry/signatures/specfact-project-0.41.12.tar.sigtests/unit/docs/test_code_review_docs_parity.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/review/test_commands.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/rules/test_updater.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_commands.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_findings.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_runner.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_scorer.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/tools/test_ai_bloat_runner.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/tools/test_ast_clean_code_runner.pytests/unit/test_bundle_resource_payloads.pytests/unit/test_check_prompt_commands_script.py
📜 Review details
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (7)
registry/**
⚙️ CodeRabbit configuration file
registry/**: Registry and index consistency: bundle listings, version pins, and compatibility with
published module artifacts.
Files:
registry/index.jsonregistry/modules/specfact-code-review-0.47.18.tar.gz.sha256registry/signatures/specfact-project-0.41.12.tar.sigregistry/signatures/specfact-code-review-0.47.18.tar.sigregistry/modules/specfact-project-0.41.12.tar.gz.sha256
packages/**/module-package.yaml
⚙️ CodeRabbit configuration file
packages/**/module-package.yaml: Validate metadata: name, version, commands, dependencies, and parity with packaged src.
Call out semver and signing implications when manifests or payloads change.
Files:
packages/specfact-project/module-package.yamlpackages/specfact-code-review/module-package.yaml
docs/**/*.md
⚙️ CodeRabbit configuration file
docs/**/*.md: User-facing and cross-site accuracy: Jekyll front matter, links per documentation-url-contract,
CLI examples matching bundled commands.
Files:
docs/bundles/code-review/rules.mddocs/bundles/project/overview.mddocs/bundles/code-review/overview.mddocs/bundles/code-review/run.mddocs/modules/code-review.md
openspec/**/*.md
⚙️ CodeRabbit configuration file
openspec/**/*.md: Specification truth: proposal/tasks/spec deltas vs. bundle behavior, CHANGE_ORDER, and
drift vs. shipped modules or docs.
Files:
openspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/specs/clean-code-analysis/spec.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/specs/code-review-simplification-feedback/spec.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/design.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/TDD_EVIDENCE.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/specs/review-finding-model/spec.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/specs/review-run-command/spec.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/tasks.mdopenspec/CHANGE_ORDER.mdopenspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/proposal.md
**/*.{js,ts,tsx,jsx,py,java,cs,go,rb,php,cpp,c,h}
📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)
Preserve the clean-code compliance gate and its category references (naming, kiss, yagni, dry, and solid)
Files:
tests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_scorer.pytests/unit/test_bundle_resource_payloads.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_commands.pytests/unit/docs/test_code_review_docs_parity.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/rules/test_updater.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/tools/test_ast_clean_code_runner.pytests/unit/test_check_prompt_commands_script.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/tools/ast_clean_code_runner.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_findings.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/findings.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/review/test_commands.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/runner.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/tools/ai_bloat_runner.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/scorer.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/review/commands.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/tools/test_ai_bloat_runner.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_runner.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/rules/updater.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/commands.py
tests/**/*.py
⚙️ CodeRabbit configuration file
tests/**/*.py: Contract-first and integration tests: migration suites, bundle validation, and flakiness.
Ensure changes to adapters or bridges have targeted coverage.
Files:
tests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_scorer.pytests/unit/test_bundle_resource_payloads.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_commands.pytests/unit/docs/test_code_review_docs_parity.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/rules/test_updater.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/tools/test_ast_clean_code_runner.pytests/unit/test_check_prompt_commands_script.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_findings.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/review/test_commands.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/tools/test_ai_bloat_runner.pytests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_runner.py
packages/**/src/**/*.py
⚙️ CodeRabbit configuration file
packages/**/src/**/*.py: Focus on adapter and bridge patterns: imports from specfact_cli (models, runtime, validators),
Typer/Rich command surfaces, and clear boundaries so core upgrades do not silently break bundles.
Flag breaking assumptions about registry loading, lazy imports, and environment/mode behavior.
Files:
packages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/tools/ast_clean_code_runner.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/findings.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/runner.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/tools/ai_bloat_runner.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/scorer.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/review/commands.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/rules/updater.pypackages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/commands.py
🧠 Learnings (1)
📚 Learning: 2026-04-02T21:49:07.435Z
Learnt from: djm81
Repo: nold-ai/specfact-cli-modules PR: 136
File: registry/modules/specfact-spec-0.40.17.tar.gz.sha256:1-1
Timestamp: 2026-04-02T21:49:07.435Z
Learning: In nold-ai/specfact-cli-modules, module tarball signature files under registry/signatures/*.tar.sig are produced by the publish-modules GitHub Actions runner during the publish workflow (not committed to the branch). During PR pre-merge review, do not flag missing *.tar.sig files as blockers; treat signatures as publish-time artifacts.
Applied to files:
registry/signatures/specfact-project-0.41.12.tar.sigregistry/signatures/specfact-code-review-0.47.18.tar.sig
🪛 LanguageTool
openspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/design.md
[style] ~27-~27: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ...behavior for simplification findings. - No blocking or score penalty for simplific...
(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
[style] ~28-~28: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ...ty for simplification findings in v1. - No cross-language implementation in v1; Py...
(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
[style] ~29-~29: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ...emains the supported analysis target. - No breaking removal or rename of existing ...
(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
openspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/proposal.md
[style] ~9-~9: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ...s, and stdlib replacement candidates. - Add duplicate-intent grouping for functions...
(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
[style] ~30-~30: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ...ds and consumers remain compatible. - Affected prompt resources: `packages/specfact-...
(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
🔀 Multi-repo context nold-ai/specfact-cli
Linked repositories findings
nold-ai/specfact-cli
-
ReviewFinding model defined/used in pre-commit script:
- scripts/pre_commit_code_review.py: class ReviewFinding(BaseModel) and findings list usage. [::nold-ai/specfact-cli::scripts/pre_commit_code_review.py]
-
Tests and scripts reference ReviewFinding and schema version 1.1:
- tests/unit/scripts/test_pre_commit_code_review.py: multiple ReviewFinding usages. [::nold-ai/specfact-cli::tests/unit/scripts/test_pre_commit_code_review.py]
- tests/integration/sync/test_change_tracking_datamodel.py: asserts bundle.manifest.versions.schema_version == "1.1". [::nold-ai/specfact-cli::tests/integration/sync/test_change_tracking_datamodel.py]
- src/specfact_cli/models/project.py: reads schema_version == "1.1". [::nold-ai/specfact-cli::src/specfact_cli/models/project.py]
- tests/e2e/test_openspec_bridge_workflow.py: asserts schema_version == "1.1". [::nold-ai/specfact-cli::tests/e2e/test_openspec_bridge_workflow.py]
-
Documentation/CHANGELOG refer to ai_bloat / simplify and schema_version 1.1 (indicates consumer expectations for new simplify metadata/schema):
- docs/index.md, docs/modules/code-review.md, README.md, docs/reference/schema-versioning.md, docs/reference/directory-structure.md, CHANGELOG.md. [::nold-ai/specfact-cli::docs/index.md][::nold-ai/specfact-cli::docs/modules/code-review.md][::nold-ai/specfact-cli::README.md][::nold-ai/specfact-cli::docs/reference/schema-versioning.md][::nold-ai/specfact-cli::CHANGELOG.md]
Implication summary:
- This repository already contains code and tests that expect ReviewFinding usage and schema_version "1.1". The PR's additions of optional simplification metadata and bumping report schema to 1.1 align with existing consumers here; no mismatches discovered in this quick scan. Verify that the new optional fields (confidence, rewrite_hint, canonical_pattern, intent_key, estimated_deletion_lines, related_locations) are acceptable to any strict validators in this repo (e.g., pre-commit script or model loaders) that consume ReviewFinding payloads.
🔇 Additional comments (30)
packages/specfact-project/module-package.yaml (1)
2-2: LGTM!Also applies to: 30-31
registry/modules/specfact-code-review-0.47.18.tar.gz.sha256 (1)
1-1: LGTM!openspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/.openspec.yaml (1)
1-2: LGTM!registry/signatures/specfact-project-0.41.12.tar.sig (1)
1-1: LGTM!registry/index.json (1)
81-83: ⚡ Quick winVerify checksum consistency for specfact-code-review 0.47.18
registry/index.jsonchecksum_sha256fornold-ai/specfact-code-reviewmatchesregistry/modules/specfact-code-review-0.47.18.tar.gz.sha256.openspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/specs/clean-code-analysis/spec.md (1)
1-17: ⚡ Quick winMissing review_comment content: The original review comment (inside
<review_comment>...</review_comment>) wasn’t provided, so I can’t rewrite it—please paste the comment text to update.docs/bundles/code-review/rules.md (1)
15-19: ⚡ Quick winMissing review comment input: No
<review_comment>...</review_comment>content was provided, so I can’t rewrite it. Paste the original review comment (including the diff snippet if any) to proceed.packages/specfact-code-review/module-package.yaml (1)
2-2: LGTM!Also applies to: 26-27
openspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/specs/review-finding-model/spec.md (1)
1-17: LGTM!openspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/specs/review-run-command/spec.md (1)
1-24: LGTM!openspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/tasks.md (1)
1-55: LGTM!packages/specfact-project/resources/prompts/specfact.03-review.md (1)
27-40: LGTM!Also applies to: 731-746
openspec/CHANGE_ORDER.md (1)
104-104: LGTM!packages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/resources/skills/specfact-code-review/SKILL.md (1)
3-3: LGTM!Also applies to: 7-7, 9-9, 13-16, 29-30
docs/bundles/code-review/run.md (1)
32-32: LGTM!Also applies to: 90-99, 126-133
tests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_commands.py (1)
205-243: LGTM!packages/specfact-project/resources/prompts/specfact.08-simplify.md (1)
21-93: LGTM!tests/unit/docs/test_code_review_docs_parity.py (1)
13-14: LGTM!Also applies to: 66-89
tests/unit/specfact_code_review/rules/test_updater.py (1)
123-124: LGTM!Also applies to: 138-139
tests/unit/specfact_code_review/tools/test_ast_clean_code_runner.py (1)
56-107: LGTM!tests/unit/test_check_prompt_commands_script.py (1)
14-15: LGTM!Also applies to: 243-243, 249-272
packages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/tools/ast_clean_code_runner.py (1)
14-14: LGTM!Also applies to: 19-37, 125-138, 173-200
openspec/changes/code-review-11-simplification-feedback-loop/proposal.md (1)
1-48: LGTM!tests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_findings.py (1)
9-10: LGTM!Also applies to: 36-41, 66-120, 207-230
packages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/run/findings.py (1)
98-113: LGTM!Also applies to: 115-120, 122-150, 191-193
tests/unit/specfact_code_review/review/test_commands.py (1)
8-9: LGTM!Also applies to: 14-19, 72-128
packages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/tools/ai_bloat_runner.py (1)
20-50: LGTM!Also applies to: 223-239, 268-305, 307-332, 334-393, 395-421, 423-528, 538-545, 547-579, 600-600
packages/specfact-code-review/src/specfact_code_review/review/commands.py (1)
29-38: LGTM!Also applies to: 64-90, 102-106, 120-131
tests/unit/specfact_code_review/tools/test_ai_bloat_runner.py (1)
5-6: LGTM!Also applies to: 91-194, 210-225
tests/unit/specfact_code_review/run/test_runner.py (1)
57-77: LGTM!Also applies to: 182-252, 254-270
chore(modules): auto-sign module manifests
chore(registry): publish changed modules
chore(modules): auto-sign module manifests
chore(registry): publish changed modules
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Verification
Notes