limit Claude Code reviews

[KRRT7]

PR Type

Documentation

---

Description

• Add PR review comment guidelines

• Clarify minimal comments/docstrings policy

• Add naming convention preferences

---

Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["AGENTS.md"] -- "Add review policy" --> B["Single consolidated PR comment"]
  A -- "Clarify comments/docstrings" --> C["Minimal, self-documenting code"]
  A -- "Naming guidance" --> D["Prefer public, clear names"]

Loading

File Walkthrough

	Relevant files
Documentation	AGENTS.md Add review and naming guidelines to AGENTS.md                        AGENTS.md Add "PR Review Comments" policy: single consolidated review, update existing comment. Add guidance to minimize comments/docstrings; prefer self-documenting code. Add naming conventions: avoid leading underscores; use clear public names. +17/-0

---

[KRRT7]

@aseembits93 any thoughts on what else we should add?

[github-actions]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 1 🔵⚪⚪⚪⚪

🧪 No relevant tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Policy Clarity The blanket guidance to minimize comments/docstrings and avoid private-style names may conflict with existing project standards or Python community norms; consider clarifying exceptions (e.g., public APIs, complex logic, security-sensitive code) and how this interacts with tools like type checkers and doc generators. ### Comments and Documentation - Keep comments and docstrings to a minimum - Only add comments where the logic is not self-evident - Do not add docstrings to functions unless explicitly requested - Code should be self-documenting through clear naming and structure ### Naming Conventions - Prefer public function names over private (no leading underscore) - Python doesn't have true private functions, so avoid `_function_name` patterns unless there's a strong reason - Use clear, descriptive names that make the code self-documenting Review Workflow Requiring a single consolidated review comment could reduce traceability for file/line-specific discussions and threaded resolutions; consider noting how to handle inline suggestions, code owner reviews, and multi-reviewer scenarios. ### PR Review Comments When reviewing pull requests: - Make a **single comment** per PR review, consolidating all feedback into one comment - If an existing review comment from you already exists on the PR, **update that comment** instead of creating a new one - Never spam PRs with multiple separate comments

[claude]

PR Review: Limit Claude Code Reviews

Summary

This PR adds documentation to AGENTS.md about PR review best practices, comment guidelines, and naming conventions. The changes are focused on improving agent behavior when interacting with the codebase.

---

✅ Positive Aspects

1. Addresses a Real Problem: The PR review consolidation guideline (lines 320-324) is valuable and helps prevent comment spam on PRs.

2. Consistent with Project Philosophy: The comments/documentation guidelines (lines 326-330) align well with the existing code style preferences evident throughout the AGENTS.md file.

3. Clear and Actionable: All three sections provide specific, actionable guidance that agents can follow.

---

🔍 Code Quality & Style

Strengths:

• Formatting is consistent with the rest of the file
• Uses clear, imperative language
• Follows the existing markdown structure with h3 headings

Minor Issues:

• Line 322: "update that comment" - The emphasis is good, but consider clarifying how to update (e.g., "edit the existing comment" vs "append to it")

---

📝 Content Review

1. PR Review Comments Section (lines 320-324)

• ✅ Clear directive to consolidate comments
• ✅ Prevents PR spam
• ⚠️ Suggestion: Consider adding guidance on what to include in a consolidated review (e.g., "Organize by category: bugs, style, performance, security")

2. Comments and Documentation Section (lines 326-330)

• ✅ Aligns with minimal-comment philosophy
• ✅ "Self-documenting code" approach is sound
• ⚠️ Minor inconsistency: Line 329 says "do not add docstrings to functions unless explicitly requested" but line 327 says "only add comments where the logic is not self-evident". These guidelines seem slightly at odds - self-evident logic might still benefit from a brief docstring explaining the purpose (not the how). Consider clarifying the distinction between inline comments vs docstrings.

3. Naming Conventions Section (lines 332-335)

• ✅ Clear guidance on avoiding underscore prefixes
• ✅ Good rationale about Python's lack of true private functions
• ⚠️ Question: Line 334 mentions "unless there's a strong reason" - consider providing 1-2 examples of when a leading underscore is appropriate (e.g., internal implementation details of a class that should be considered private by convention, name conflicts with builtins)

---

🐛 Potential Issues

No bugs identified - This is documentation-only with no code logic.

---

🔒 Security Concerns

None - No security implications for documentation changes.

---

⚡ Performance Considerations

Not applicable - No performance impact.

---

🧪 Test Coverage

Not applicable - Documentation changes don't require tests.

---

📋 Suggestions for Improvement

1. Expand PR Review Section: Add a bullet point about organizing feedback by category:

   - Organize feedback by category (e.g., bugs, style, performance, security) for easier navigation

2. Clarify Update Mechanism: Specify whether to edit/replace or append when updating existing comments.

3. Docstring Clarification: Consider distinguishing between:

   • Inline comments (only when logic is unclear)
   • Docstrings (minimal, only when explicitly requested or for public APIs)

4. Examples for Naming: Add brief examples of when underscores are acceptable:

   - Use clear, descriptive names that make the code self-documenting
   - Acceptable uses of `_prefix`: internal class implementation details, avoiding conflicts with keywords

5. Cross-reference: Consider linking this section to the "Code Style" section (line 216) since they're related.

---

🎯 Recommendation

✅ APPROVE with minor suggestions

This PR is valuable and ready to merge as-is. The suggestions above are optional enhancements that could make the guidelines even more clear and actionable, but they're not blockers. The core additions address real needs and will improve agent behavior.

Priority: Low
Merge readiness: High

Great work on consolidating these best practices! 🎉

[github-actions]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
General	Reintroduce underscore for non-public APIs Avoid breaking encapsulation by allowing underscore-prefixed helpers within modules and classes to signal non-public APIs. Clarify stability guarantees: underscore-prefixed members are not part of the public contract and may change without notice. AGENTS.md [333-336] ### Naming Conventions -- Prefer public function names over private (no leading underscore) -- Python doesn't have true private functions, so avoid `_function_name` patterns unless there's a strong reason +- Prefer public function names over private (no leading underscore) for stable, supported APIs +- Use `_name` for internal helpers or non-public members to indicate they are not part of the public contract and may change without notice +- Python doesn't have true private functions, but underscore conventions help communicate intent; use them when encapsulation matters - Use clear, descriptive names that make the code self-documenting Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6 __ Why: This corrects a potentially harmful guideline by aligning with common Python conventions about underscore-prefixed non-public members; improves clarity and maintainability without contradicting code functionality.	Low
	Define exceptions and concurrency handling Clarify an exception for critical or blocking issues that require immediate, separate comments (e.g., security vulnerabilities) to avoid delayed visibility. Explicitly state how to handle cross-reviewer concurrency to prevent comment overwrites or missed updates. AGENTS.md [320-325] ### PR Review Comments When reviewing pull requests: - Make a **single comment** per PR review, consolidating all feedback into one comment - If an existing review comment from you already exists on the PR, **update that comment** instead of creating a new one - Never spam PRs with multiple separate comments +- Exception: For critical or blocking issues (e.g., security vulnerabilities, data loss), post a separate high-priority comment immediately, then summarize in the consolidated comment later +- Concurrency: If multiple reviewers are active, avoid overwriting; append updates in a clearly labeled "Update" section within the existing comment Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 __ Why: The suggestion is reasonable policy clarification and fits the new section, but it's subjective process guidance rather than a correctness fix and may conflict with the "single comment" rule; moderate impact on clarity.	Low
	Allow essential API docstrings Prevent under-documentation by allowing docstrings for public APIs and complex logic where behavior, parameters, and side effects must be explicit. Add a guideline to keep docstrings concise and aligned with existing style (e.g., Google or NumPy) to ensure consistency. AGENTS.md [326-331] ### Comments and Documentation -- Keep comments and docstrings to a minimum -- Only add comments where the logic is not self-evident -- Do not add docstrings to functions unless explicitly requested +- Keep comments and docstrings focused and concise; avoid redundancy with obvious code +- Add docstrings for public APIs, externally consumed interfaces, and non-trivial logic to document behavior, parameters, return types, and side effects +- Only add inline comments where the logic is not self-evident or where assumptions/edge cases need clarification +- Follow the project's docstring style guide (e.g., Google or NumPy) for consistency - Code should be self-documenting through clear naming and structure Suggestion importance[1-10]: 4 __ Why: This adds nuance to documentation guidance and could prevent under-documentation, but it contradicts the current PR's explicit minimal-docstrings stance; low-to-moderate impact and policy-based.	Low

[claude]

PR Review: Limit Claude Code Reviews

Summary

This PR streamlines AGENTS.md by removing extensive documentation (-292 lines) and adding focused guidelines for PR reviews, comments/docstrings, and naming conventions (+46 lines). The intent to create more concise, actionable guidance is valuable, but there are concerns about lost information.

---

✅ Strengths

1. Much More Concise: The streamlined format makes it easier for AI agents to quickly grasp essentials
2. Clear Code Examples: The use of practical code snippets for uv, libcst, and Either pattern is excellent
3. New Guidelines: Valuable additions:
   • Minimal comments/docstrings policy (AGENTS.md:65-66)
   • Naming preferences avoiding underscores (AGENTS.md:67)
   • PR review consolidation policy (AGENTS.md:70-73)

---

⚠️ Concerns

1. Significant Information Loss

The PR removes critical content that may be needed:

• Detailed architecture & data flow pipeline
• Configuration details (pyproject.toml structure)
• Development commands (testing, building, benchmarking)
• Key dependencies & technology stack
• Debugging patterns & environment variables
• Performance optimization guidance

Question: Has this information been moved elsewhere (e.g., DEVELOPMENT.md, ARCHITECTURE.md), or is it intentionally removed?

2. Python Version Inconsistency

Line 62 now states "Python: 3.9+ syntax" but the original specified Python 3.10+.

Action needed: Verify the actual minimum version against pyproject.toml and ensure consistency.

3. Architecture Section Too Minimal

The directory tree (AGENTS.md:61-72) shows structure but not how components interact or the optimization flow.

Suggestion: Add a brief one-liner about the pipeline:

# Pipeline: Discovery → Context → Optimization → Verification → Benchmarking → PR

4. Missing Workflow Patterns

Important patterns were removed:

• How to use --all, --file, --function flags
• Checkpoint system for interrupted runs
• Replay tests for debugging
• Custom pytest plugin behavior & environment variables

Recommendation: Either retain key workflow examples or add cross-references to where they're documented.

5. PR Review Guidelines Context

The new guidelines at AGENTS.md:70-73 are excellent but seem generic. Are these specific to CodeFlash PR reviews or general guidance for any project?

---

📋 Recommendations

1. Hybrid approach: Keep the concise format but add "See ARCHITECTURE.md for details" style references
2. Verify Python version: Ensure it matches pyproject.toml
3. Add minimal workflow examples: 2-3 lines showing common optimization commands
4. Document configuration location: At least mention where to find pyproject.toml settings
5. Preserve debugging info: Key environment variables and debugging patterns should be retained or cross-referenced

---

🎯 Overall Assessment

The streamlining is valuable, but consider a middle ground. The new version is more accessible but potentially less useful for complex scenarios. The goal should be: concise enough to read quickly, complete enough to be effective.

Suggestion: Consider keeping this concise version as the "quick start" section and adding a "Detailed Reference" section (or separate file) with links to deeper information.

---

✅ Approval Recommendation

Approve with minor revisions to address Python version and add cross-references to detailed documentation if it exists elsewhere.

[aseembits93]

@KRRT7 looks good, shall we keep or remove qodo-ai pr-agent(pr_agent.yml)?

[aseembits93]

@KRRT7 this will be an issue since we've moved to another cloud provider

[KRRT7]

we already have the anthropic API key setup so it should be fine, anyways, I think I figured out how to use our hosted foundry API, I will implement it ASAP

[KRRT7]

force merging this, so that the changes take effect