Agt 26 cli list directory files #30
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
| name: PR Review | |
| on: | |
| pull_request: | |
| types: [opened, synchronize, labeled, unlabeled] | |
| permissions: | |
| contents: read | |
| pull-requests: write | |
| jobs: | |
| review: | |
| runs-on: ubuntu-latest | |
| steps: | |
| - uses: actions/checkout@v3 | |
| - name: AI PR Review | |
| uses: jonit-dev/openrouter-github-action@main | |
| with: | |
| # Required inputs | |
| github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} # Automatically provided | |
| open_router_key: ${{ secrets.OPEN_ROUTER_KEY }} # Must be set in repository secrets | |
| # Optional inputs with defaults | |
| model_id: "anthropic/claude-3.5-sonnet:beta" # Default model | |
| max_tokens: "2048" # Default max tokens | |
| review_label: "ai-review" | |
| custom_prompt: | | |
| ### **AI PR Review Instructions** | |
| **Objective:** | |
| Provide a clear, concise, and actionable review of the Pull Request (PR). Focus on overall codebase quality, including readability, maintainability, functionality, and adherence to best practices. Avoid minor nitty-picky comments and repetitive feedback. | |
| **Focus Areas:** | |
| 1. **Code Quality:** Assess the readability, organization, and maintainability of the code. | |
| 2. **Functionality:** Ensure the PR meets its intended purpose and functions as expected. | |
| 3. **Best Practices:** Evaluate adherence to coding standards, design patterns, and project guidelines. | |
| 4. **Performance:** Identify any potential performance improvements or optimizations. | |
| 5. **Testing:** Review the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the test coverage. | |
| **Review Structure:** | |
| 1. **Overall Summary** | |
| - **Score:** Provide an overall score out of 5 stars. | |
| - **Summary:** Brief overview of the PR, highlighting its purpose and main changes. | |
| 2. **Key Strengths** | |
| - Highlight 2-3 major strengths related to code quality and overall implementation. | |
| 3. **Areas for Improvement** | |
| - Identify 2-3 significant areas that need enhancement. | |
| - Provide actionable suggestions for each identified issue. | |
| 4. **Performance Considerations** (if applicable) | |
| - Mention any high-level performance optimizations or concerns. | |
| 5. **Best Practices** | |
| - Recommendations on adhering to coding standards, design patterns, or other best practices relevant to the project. | |
| 6. **Testing** | |
| - Evaluate the adequacy of test coverage and suggest areas for additional tests if necessary. | |
| 7. **Conclusion** | |
| - A short closing statement summarizing the overall quality of the PR and its readiness for merging. | |
| **Scoring Criteria:** | |
| - ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (5/5): Exceptional quality, no major issues, and well-optimized. | |
| - ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4/5): High quality, minor improvements possible. | |
| - ⭐⭐⭐ (3/5): Average quality, some issues need attention. | |
| - ⭐⭐ (2/5): Below average quality, significant improvements required. | |
| - ⭐ (1/5): Poor quality, major issues, and refactoring needed. | |
| **Formatting Guidelines:** | |
| - Use clear and concise language. | |
| - Limit each section to the most critical points (2-3 items per section). | |
| - Avoid repetitive phrases or focusing on minor code style issues unless they impact overall quality. | |
| - Use bullet points and clear headings for readability. | |
| ** Notes:** | |
| - If you have nothing to say about a particular section, you can omit it from the review. | |
| - If you think there are no issues and the PR is good to go, mention it in the conclusion. No need to add unnecessary feedback. | |
| **Example Output:** | |
| --- | |
| ### **AI Review Summary** | |
| **🏆 Overall Score:** ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4/5) | |
| *The PR successfully implements the new feature with clean and well-structured code. Minor improvements are recommended to enhance maintainability and performance.* | |
| --- | |
| **✅ Key Strengths** | |
| - **Feature Implementation:** Effectively adds the new feature, enhancing the application's functionality. | |
| - **Code Structure:** Well-organized code with logical separation of concerns. | |
| - **Documentation:** Comprehensive comments and documentation facilitate easier maintenance. | |
| --- | |
| **⚠️ Areas for Improvement** | |
| - **Error Handling:** | |
| *Suggestion:* Implement more robust error handling to cover edge cases and unexpected inputs. | |
| - **Code Reusability:** | |
| *Suggestion:* Refactor repetitive code into reusable functions or components to improve maintainability. | |
| - **Testing Coverage:** | |
| *Suggestion:* Add additional unit tests to cover critical functionalities and edge cases. | |
| --- | |
| **⚡ Performance Considerations** | |
| - **Optimizing Loops:** | |
| *Suggestion:* Review and optimize nested loops to reduce computational complexity and improve performance. | |
| --- | |
| **📏 Best Practices** | |
| - **Consistent Naming Conventions:** | |
| *Suggestion:* Adopt consistent naming conventions for variables and functions to enhance code readability. | |
| --- | |
| **🧪 Testing** | |
| - **Comprehensive Test Cases:** | |
| *Suggestion:* Include test cases for edge scenarios to ensure robustness and reliability. | |
| --- | |
| **🔚 Conclusion** | |
| *The PR is well-executed with clear benefits to the project. Addressing the highlighted areas will further strengthen the codebase and ensure seamless integration.* | |
| --- | |
| **End of Review** |