feat(quality-gates): implement task classification for selective gate execution #261
Conversation
… execution Add intelligent task classification system to determine which quality gates apply based on task characteristics. This prevents false failures when non-code tasks (design, documentation) go through code-specific gates. Key Changes: - Add TaskClassifier module with keyword-based task categorization - Add QualityGateRules module defining gate applicability per category - Add QualityGatesConfig for environment-based configuration - Update QualityGates.run_all_gates() for selective execution - Update QualityGateResult model with skipped_gates and task_category - Improve error handling for missing tools (pytest-cov) - Update WorkerAgent completion messages with gate status Task Categories and Applicable Gates: - CODE_IMPLEMENTATION: All 6 gates - DESIGN: Only code_review - DOCUMENTATION: Only linting - CONFIGURATION: linting, type_check - TESTING: tests, coverage, skip_detection - REFACTORING: All 6 gates - MIXED: All 6 gates (conservative) Tests: 129 new/updated tests passing
WalkthroughImplements task classification, per-category gate rules, and configurable gate selection; quality gate orchestration now records skipped gates and task category in results, and WorkerAgent.complete_task returns and uses Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Client as Incoming Task
participant Classifier as TaskClassifier
participant Config as QualityGatesConfig
participant Rules as QualityGateRules
participant Orchestrator as QualityGates
participant Agent as WorkerAgent
Client->>Classifier: classify_task(task)
Classifier-->>Orchestrator: task_category
Orchestrator->>Config: get_quality_gates_config()
Orchestrator->>Rules: get_applicable_gates(task_category)
Rules-->>Orchestrator: applicable_gates (and skip_reasons)
Orchestrator->>Orchestrator: run applicable gates, collect failures & skipped_gates
Orchestrator-->>Agent: QualityGateResult (status, failures, skipped_gates, task_category)
Agent-->>Client: complete_task response (message including gates_msg, task_category, skipped_gates, status)
Estimated code review effort🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~50 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (5)
Comment |
Implement classification-driven selective execution of quality gates in
|
![macroscopeapp[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/900172?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In @codeframe/agents/worker_agent.py:
- Around line 1400-1408: Replace the hardcoded "6" with a dynamic total gate
count: compute total_gates = len(QualityGateType) (or an equivalent runtime
lookup of the enum/mapping) and use total_gates - skipped_count when building
gates_msg; reference quality_result.gates_skipped_count,
quality_result.task_category and QualityGateType so the message remains correct
if the enum changes.
In @codeframe/lib/quality_gates.py:
- Around line 1145-1160: The gate methods currently call _create_quality_blocker
without the task_category, so blockers lack category context; modify each gate
method signature (run_tests_gate, run_type_check_gate, run_coverage_gate,
run_linting_gate, run_skip_detection_gate) to accept an optional task_category
parameter and update run_all_gates to pass the classified task_category into
each call, then pass that task_category through to the _create_quality_blocker
invocations inside those methods; alternatively, if category is not needed,
remove the task_category parameter from _create_quality_blocker and any
references to it in those gate methods and run_all_gates—prefer the first
approach to preserve category context.
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
codeframe/config/quality_gates_config.py (1)
53-78: Consider logging invalid gate names.The
get_custom_gates_for_categorymethod silently skips invalid gate names. While this prevents failures, it could hide configuration errors from operators.Optional: Add logging for invalid gate names
+import logging + +logger = logging.getLogger(__name__) + # Convert string names to QualityGateType enum values gates = [] for name in gate_names: try: gates.append(QualityGateType(name)) except ValueError: # Invalid gate name, skip it - pass + logger.warning(f"Invalid gate name '{name}' in custom_category_rules for '{category}', skipping") return gates if gates else Nonetests/lib/test_quality_gates.py (2)
1247-1267: Consider using unique task numbers to avoid potential database conflicts.The
_create_taskhelper always uses"1.1.1"as the task number. While this may work if tests run in isolation with separate databases, it could cause issues if tests are ever run in sequence or if the task_number has a unique constraint.♻️ Suggested improvement
+ _task_counter = 0 + def _create_task(self, db, project_id, title, description=""): """Helper to create test tasks with specific titles.""" + TestQualityGatesTaskClassification._task_counter += 1 + task_number = f"1.1.{TestQualityGatesTaskClassification._task_counter}" cursor = db.conn.cursor() cursor.execute( """ INSERT INTO tasks (project_id, task_number, title, description, status) VALUES (?, ?, ?, ?, ?) """, - (project_id, "1.1.1", title, description, "in_progress"), + (project_id, task_number, title, description, "in_progress"), ) db.conn.commit() task_id = cursor.lastrowid return Task( id=task_id, project_id=project_id, - task_number="1.1.1", + task_number=task_number, title=title, description=description, status=TaskStatus.IN_PROGRESS, )
1358-1369: Strengthen the assertion for skipped gates verification.The assertion
hasattr(result, 'skipped_gates') or 'skipped' in str(result)is weak and could pass even if the implementation is incorrect. SinceQualityGateResultnow has explicitskipped_gatesfield per the PR changes, assert directly on it.♻️ Proposed fix
@pytest.mark.asyncio async def test_result_includes_skipped_gates_info(self, db, project_id, quality_gates): """Result should include information about skipped gates.""" task = self._create_task(db, project_id, "Design microservices architecture") with patch.object(quality_gates, "run_review_gate", new_callable=AsyncMock) as mock_review: mock_review.return_value = QualityGateResult(task_id=task.id, status="passed", failures=[], execution_time_seconds=0.1) result = await quality_gates.run_all_gates(task) - # Check that skipped_gates is populated - assert hasattr(result, 'skipped_gates') or 'skipped' in str(result) + # Check that skipped_gates is populated with non-code gates + assert hasattr(result, 'skipped_gates') + assert len(result.skipped_gates) > 0 + # Design tasks should skip tests, coverage, type_check, linting, skip_detection + assert 'tests' in result.skipped_gates + assert 'coverage' in result.skipped_gatescodeframe/lib/quality_gates.py (2)
661-683: Consider defensive handling for classifier exceptions.If
TaskClassifier.classify_task()raises an exception, the entirerun_all_gatesmethod will fail. Consider wrapping the classification in a try-except to fall back to running all gates if classification fails.♻️ Suggested defensive handling
# Classify the task and determine applicable gates classifier = TaskClassifier() rules = QualityGateRules() - category = classifier.classify_task(task) + try: + category = classifier.classify_task(task) + except Exception as e: + logger.warning( + f"Task classification failed for task {task.id}: {e}. " + "Falling back to running all gates." + ) + category = TaskCategory.MIXED # Conservative fallback
980-993: Good handling of missing pytest-cov, but case sensitivity may miss some errors.The check uses
.lower()for "no module named 'pytest_cov'" but not for "unrecognized arguments: --cov". Consider making both checks case-insensitive for robustness.♻️ Suggested improvement
# Check if pytest-cov is not installed - if "unrecognized arguments: --cov" in output or "no module named 'pytest_cov'" in output.lower(): + output_lower = output.lower() + if "unrecognized arguments: --cov" in output_lower or "no module named 'pytest_cov'" in output_lower:
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
codeframe/agents/worker_agent.pycodeframe/config/quality_gates_config.pycodeframe/core/models.pycodeframe/lib/quality_gate_rules.pycodeframe/lib/quality_gates.pycodeframe/lib/task_classifier.pytests/config/test_quality_gates_config.pytests/lib/test_quality_gate_rules.pytests/lib/test_quality_gates.pytests/lib/test_task_classifier.py
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
codeframe/**/*.py
📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)
codeframe/**/*.py: Use Python 3.11+ for backend development
Use FastAPI framework for backend API development
Use SQLite with async support (aiosqlite) for database operations
Use tiktoken for token counting
Run linting with ruff check .
Import and use domain-specific repositories from codeframe/persistence/repositories/ for data access instead of direct database calls
Files:
codeframe/core/models.pycodeframe/lib/task_classifier.pycodeframe/agents/worker_agent.pycodeframe/lib/quality_gate_rules.pycodeframe/config/quality_gates_config.pycodeframe/lib/quality_gates.py
🧠 Learnings (1)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: CR
Repo: frankbria/codeframe PR: 0
File: AGENTS.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-11-25T19:08:54.154Z
Learning: Applies to specs/*/tasks.md : Feature task files (tasks.md) must include phase-by-phase task breakdown with unique task identifiers (T001, T002, etc.), acceptance criteria per task, beads issue references, and estimated effort
🧬 Code graph analysis (7)
codeframe/lib/task_classifier.py (2)
codeframe/core/models.py (2)
Task(257-305)title(242-243)tests/lib/test_quality_gates.py (3)
task(56-79)task(467-488)task(901-924)
codeframe/agents/worker_agent.py (1)
codeframe/core/models.py (1)
gates_skipped_count(938-940)
tests/lib/test_task_classifier.py (1)
codeframe/lib/task_classifier.py (3)
TaskClassifier(94-185)TaskCategory(31-43)classify_task(122-185)
codeframe/lib/quality_gate_rules.py (2)
codeframe/core/models.py (1)
QualityGateType(158-166)codeframe/lib/task_classifier.py (1)
TaskCategory(31-43)
codeframe/config/quality_gates_config.py (1)
codeframe/core/models.py (1)
QualityGateType(158-166)
tests/lib/test_quality_gates.py (3)
codeframe/core/models.py (8)
project_id(234-235)title(242-243)Task(257-305)id(230-231)status(246-247)TaskStatus(10-18)QualityGateResult(906-940)passed(928-930)codeframe/persistence/database.py (2)
Database(51-718)initialize(110-130)codeframe/lib/quality_gates.py (2)
QualityGates(86-1437)run_all_gates(615-774)
codeframe/lib/quality_gates.py (5)
codeframe/config/quality_gates_config.py (3)
get_quality_gates_config(103-125)should_use_task_classification(43-51)get_custom_gates_for_category(53-78)codeframe/enforcement/skip_pattern_detector.py (1)
SkipPatternDetector(38-457)codeframe/lib/task_classifier.py (2)
TaskClassifier(94-185)classify_task(122-185)codeframe/lib/quality_gate_rules.py (4)
QualityGateRules(102-157)get_applicable_gates(115-124)all_gates(111-113)get_skip_reason(139-157)codeframe/core/models.py (4)
id(230-231)QualityGateType(158-166)Task(257-305)title(242-243)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (3)
- GitHub Check: Macroscope - Correctness Check
- GitHub Check: E2E Smoke Tests (Chromium)
- GitHub Check: opencode-review
🔇 Additional comments (35)
codeframe/core/models.py (1)
906-941: LGTM!The new
skipped_gatesandtask_categoryfields are well-designed with appropriate defaults usingField(default_factory=list)for the mutable list, avoiding the common pitfall of mutable default arguments. Thegates_skipped_countproperty provides a clean computed accessor.codeframe/lib/task_classifier.py (3)
1-44: LGTM!The module structure is clean with a comprehensive docstring explaining the purpose and usage. The
TaskCategoryenum inherits fromstrfor proper JSON serialization, and the seven categories cover the expected task types well.
46-121: LGTM!The keyword definitions use
frozensetfor immutability, and the_compile_patternmethod correctly sorts keywords by length descending to ensure longer keywords are matched first in the regex alternation. The word boundary matching (\b) prevents false positives from embedded keywords.
122-185: LGTM!The classification logic follows a clear priority order with good documentation. The distinction between "strong" and "weak" code keywords prevents generic verbs like "create" from triggering MIXED classification when combined with non-code categories. The conservative default to
CODE_IMPLEMENTATIONensures all quality gates run when classification is uncertain.codeframe/agents/worker_agent.py (2)
1414-1423: LGTM!The success return payload correctly includes the new
task_categoryandskipped_gatesfields with appropriate fallbacks usinghasattr()for backward compatibility.
1444-1457: LGTM!The failure path appropriately includes task category context in the message and return payload, providing useful debugging information when quality gates fail.
tests/config/test_quality_gates_config.py (3)
1-72: LGTM!Comprehensive test coverage for the
QualityGatesConfigdataclass including default values, task classification behavior with various flag combinations, and custom category rules with validation of invalid gate names.
74-99: LGTM!The
_parse_bool_envtests cover true/false values, case variations, defaults when unset, and defaults when invalid. Good edge case coverage.
101-153: LGTM!The singleton behavior tests properly use
setup_method/teardown_methodto reset state between tests. Thepatch.dictusage correctly isolates environment variable changes.codeframe/lib/quality_gate_rules.py (3)
1-70: LGTM!The gate applicability matrix is well-documented and the mappings are comprehensive. The conservative approach of applying all gates for
MIXEDand unknown categories ensures no quality checks are accidentally skipped.
72-99: LGTM!Skip reasons are human-readable and provide clear context for why specific gates don't apply to certain task categories. This will be helpful for debugging and user feedback.
102-157: LGTM!The
QualityGateRulesclass provides a clean API withget_applicable_gates,should_skip_gate, andget_skip_reason. The fallback toTaskCategory.MIXEDfor unknown categories and the default skip reason generation handle edge cases gracefully.tests/lib/test_task_classifier.py (3)
1-53: LGTM!Good test structure with a reusable
_make_taskhelper and pytest fixture for the classifier. TheTestTaskCategoryclass validates enum completeness.
54-197: LGTM!Thorough coverage of DESIGN, DOCUMENTATION, CONFIGURATION, and CODE_IMPLEMENTATION categories with tests for various keywords. The test for classification by description (line 88-94) ensures both title and description are considered.
198-280: LGTM!Excellent edge case coverage including:
- MIXED classification when design + implement keywords present
- Empty description defaulting to CODE_IMPLEMENTATION
- Case-insensitive matching
- Word boundary enforcement (preventing false matches)
- Priority/precedence rules for TESTING and REFACTORING
codeframe/config/quality_gates_config.py (2)
1-52: LGTM!The module docstring clearly documents environment variables. The
QualityGatesConfigdataclass has sensible defaults and theshould_use_task_classification()method correctly implements the logic that strict mode overrides task classification.
81-134: LGTM!The
_parse_bool_envhelper handles common boolean string representations. The singleton pattern withget_quality_gates_config()andreset_config()is appropriate for configuration that should be loaded once and cached, while still supporting testing scenarios.tests/lib/test_quality_gates.py (5)
900-924: LGTM! Fixture updated to align with task classification tests.The fixture now explicitly creates a code implementation task with appropriate title ("Implement feature") and description ("Build authentication module") that will trigger the CODE_IMPLEMENTATION classification, ensuring all gates run for integration tests.
1274-1301: LGTM! Design task gate selection test is well-structured.The test properly verifies that design tasks only run the code_review gate while skipping tests, coverage, type_check, linting, and skip_detection gates. The mocking approach with
patch.objectandAsyncMockis appropriate for this integration-style test.
1303-1329: LGTM! Code implementation gate coverage test is comprehensive.The test correctly verifies that code implementation tasks run all six gates (tests, coverage, type_check, linting, code_review, skip_detection), which aligns with the applicability matrix in the PR objectives.
1331-1356: LGTM! Documentation task test correctly validates linting-only execution.The test verifies that documentation tasks only run the linting gate, consistent with the quality gate applicability matrix.
1371-1396: LGTM! Configuration task test correctly validates linting and type_check execution.The test verifies that configuration tasks run both linting and type_check gates while skipping tests, coverage, code_review, and skip_detection.
tests/lib/test_quality_gate_rules.py (6)
1-21: Excellent documentation with applicability matrix.The docstring clearly documents the Quality Gate Applicability Matrix, which serves as both documentation and a reference for understanding the expected behavior. This makes the tests self-documenting and maintainable.
35-46: LGTM! CODE_IMPLEMENTATION gate coverage is comprehensive.The test correctly verifies that code implementation tasks have all 6 gates applied and explicitly checks each gate type.
51-66: LGTM! DESIGN gate tests are thorough.The tests correctly verify that design tasks only have the code_review gate and explicitly check that tests and coverage are excluded.
105-117: LGTM! TESTING category gate tests are correct.The tests verify that testing tasks get tests, coverage, and skip_detection gates (3 total), while excluding code_review. This makes sense as testing tasks focus on test quality rather than code review.
167-170: LGTM! Comprehensive CODE_IMPLEMENTATION skip verification.The test iterates through all QualityGateType values to ensure none are skipped for code implementation tasks, providing complete coverage of the expected behavior.
192-198: LGTM! all_gates property test validates enumeration completeness.The test ensures that the
all_gatesproperty returns all 6 gate types and that everyQualityGateTypeenum value is included.codeframe/lib/quality_gates.py (7)
55-58: LGTM! New imports for task classification system.The imports for
get_quality_gates_config,TaskClassifier, andQualityGateRulesare correctly placed and support the new task classification feature.
685-688: LGTM! Informative logging for task classification.The log message includes task ID, category, and applicable gates which will be valuable for debugging and understanding gate execution decisions.
701-753: LGTM! Consistent pattern for gate execution with skip tracking.Each gate follows a consistent pattern: check if applicable, execute if yes, log and track skip reason if no. The skip reasons from
rules.get_skip_reason()provide useful context for debugging.
760-772: LGTM! Result construction includes classification context.The
QualityGateResultnow includesskipped_gatesandtask_category, providing complete context about what was executed and why. The final log message includes the skip count for visibility.
825-866: LGTM! Proper separation of test execution and coverage.The change to run pytest without
--covflags is appropriate since coverage is now handled separately by_run_coverage(). This prevents test failures whenpytest-covis not installed, improving the robustness of the quality gates.
1145-1176: LGTM! Enhanced blocker messages with task category context.The addition of
task_categoryparameter and the inclusion of category guidance in blocker messages helps users understand which gates were applied and provides actionable advice if the task was misclassified.
1216-1254: LGTM! Helpful category-specific guidance messages.The
_get_category_guidancemethod provides clear, actionable guidance for each task category. The messages help users understand the gate behavior and suggest corrective actions (e.g., updating task titles if code was written for a documentation task).
PR Review: Task Classification for Quality GatesOverall, this is a well-implemented feature with excellent test coverage (129 total tests). The task classification system effectively solves the problem of false gate failures for non-code tasks. The code is clean, well-documented, and follows project conventions. ✅ Strengths
🔴 High Priority Issues1. Silent Invalid Configuration HandlingFile: The for name in gate_names:
try:
gates.append(QualityGateType(name))
except ValueError:
# Invalid gate name, skip it <-- No logging!
passImpact: If a user has a typo in Recommendation: Add logging for invalid gate names: except ValueError as e:
logger.warning(f"Invalid gate name '{name}' for category '{category}': {e}")
pass2. Coverage Gate Passes When pytest-cov Not InstalledFile: When pytest-cov is not installed, the coverage gate passes with 100%: if "unrecognized arguments: --cov" in output or "no module named 'pytest_cov'" in output.lower():
return {
"returncode": 0, # <-- Passes the gate!
"output": "pytest-cov not installed, skipping coverage check",
"coverage_pct": 100.0,
"skipped": True,
}Impact: Users may think they have 100% coverage when they don't even have the coverage plugin installed. This could lead to undetected quality issues. Recommendation: Consider:
3. Database Update Lacks Error HandlingFile: Direct database cursor usage without proper error handling: cursor = self.db.conn.cursor() # type: ignore[union-attr]
cursor.execute(
"UPDATE tasks SET requires_human_approval = 1 WHERE id = ?",
(task.id,),
)
self.db.conn.commit() # type: ignore[union-attr]Impact: If the UPDATE fails (e.g., constraint violation, connection issue), the exception will propagate, but there's no logging or transaction rollback. This could leave the database in an inconsistent state. Recommendation: Wrap in try-except or use repository methods: try:
cursor = self.db.conn.cursor()
cursor.execute(
"UPDATE tasks SET requires_human_approval = 1 WHERE id = ?",
(task.id,),
)
self.db.conn.commit()
except Exception as e:
self.db.conn.rollback()
logger.error(f"Failed to mark task {task.id} for human approval: {e}")🟡 Medium Priority Issues4. MIXED Category Logic Could Be More SophisticatedFile: The MIXED category only triggers when strong code + strong non-code keywords are present: has_strong_non_code = has_design or has_doc
if has_strong_non_code and has_code_strong:
return TaskCategory.MIXEDImpact: Tasks like "Update configuration for test environment" (config + testing) won't be classified as MIXED. Weak code keywords (create, add) don't trigger MIXED. Recommendation: Consider a scoring system where multiple category signals produce MIXED, not just strong code + strong non-code. 5. Design Task Review May Not Have Code to ReviewFile: DESIGN tasks only have CODE_REVIEW gate: TaskCategory.DESIGN: [
QualityGateType.CODE_REVIEW,
],Impact: If a design task produces code artifacts (e.g., database schema files), the review gate will run on them. But if the task only produces documentation/diagrams, there's nothing to review, and the gate may still run unnecessarily. Recommendation: Consider if DESIGN tasks should have a dedicated design review gate, or clarify what the code review gate is supposed to review for design tasks. 🔵 Low Priority / Suggestions6. Redundant
|
Additional Review CommentsAfter reviewing the PR and examining existing reviews from @github-actions, @macroscopeapp, and @coderabbitai, I've identified several additional issues not yet covered: 🟡 Medium Priority Issues8. custom_category_rules Cannot Be Configured via Environment VariablesFile: The # In get_quality_gates_config()
if _config is None:
_config = QualityGatesConfig(
enable_task_classification=_parse_bool_env(
"QUALITY_GATES_ENABLE_TASK_CLASSIFICATION", True
),
strict_mode=_parse_bool_env("QUALITY_GATES_STRICT_MODE", False),
# custom_category_rules is never set from env vars!
)Impact: Users cannot actually use the custom category rules feature without modifying code. The tests pass values directly to the dataclass constructor, but in production this will always be Recommendation: Add environment variable support for JSON-based custom rules: # Add JSON parsing and env var support
import json
custom_category_rules_raw = os.environ.get("QUALITY_GATES_CUSTOM_CATEGORY_RULES")
custom_category_rules = None
if custom_category_rules_raw:
try:
custom_category_rules = json.loads(custom_category_rules_raw)
except json.JSONDecodeError as e:
logger.warning(f"Failed to parse QUALITY_GATES_CUSTOM_CATEGORY_RULES: {e}")
_config = QualityGatesConfig(
enable_task_classification=_parse_bool_env(
"QUALITY_GATES_ENABLE_TASK_CLASSIFICATION", True
),
strict_mode=_parse_bool_env("QUALITY_GATES_STRICT_MODE", False),
custom_category_rules=custom_category_rules, # Add this
)9. No Validation/Warning When Custom Rules Are IgnoredFile: When custom rules result in an empty gate list or all invalid gate names, code silently falls back to default rules without any indication: # In run_all_gates()
if config.should_use_task_classification():
# Check for custom rules first
custom_gates = config.get_custom_gates_for_category(category.value)
if custom_gates is not None:
applicable_gates = custom_gates # User expects custom rules to apply
else:
applicable_gates = rules.get_applicable_gates(category)
# No warning that custom rules were ignored!Impact: If a user configures a custom rule but all gate names are invalid (e.g., typos like "test" instead of "tests"), the code silently falls back to default rules. The user won't know their configuration was ignored. Recommendation: Add logging when custom rules are ignored despite being configured: if config.should_use_task_classification():
custom_gates = config.get_custom_gates_for_category(category.value)
if custom_gates is not None:
applicable_gates = custom_gates
else:
applicable_gates = rules.get_applicable_gates(category)
# Warn if custom rules were configured but ignored
if config.custom_category_rules and category.value in config.custom_category_rules:
logger.warning(
f"Custom category rules for '{category.value}' were ignored. "
f"This happens if all gate names are invalid. "
f"Valid gates: {[g.value for g in QualityGateType]}"
)🔵 Low Priority / Suggestions10. Document How to Use custom_category_rulesSince the feature exists but cannot be configured via environment variables (issue #8), documentation would help:
Example JSON format (if issue #8 is implemented): export QUALITY_GATES_CUSTOM_CATEGORY_RULES='{"design": ["code_review", "tests"], "documentation": ["linting", "type_check"]}'11. Consider Thread Safety for Singleton ConfigFile: The singleton pattern with global # Singleton config instance
_config: Optional[QualityGatesConfig] = None
def get_quality_gates_config() -> QualityGatesConfig:
global _config
if _config is None: # Race condition: multiple threads could pass this check
_config = QualityGatesConfig(...)
return _configImpact: In a multi-threaded environment (e.g., if multiple background tasks run quality gates simultaneously), there is a theoretical race condition where multiple Recommendation: For production use with concurrent quality gate execution, consider adding a lock or using 📝 Summary of Additional Issues
These issues complement the excellent findings in the existing reviews. The PR has solid test coverage and good architecture, but the above points should be addressed before or shortly after merging. |
|
I've completed my review of PR #261 and posted a comprehensive comment with findings not covered in previous reviews. Summary of My ReviewThe PR effectively implements task classification for selective quality gate execution. The existing reviews from @github-actions, @macroscopeapp, and @coderabbitai covered most issues. I identified 2 additional medium-priority issues: Medium Priority Issues
Low Priority Suggestions
The PR has excellent test coverage (129 tests), clean architecture, and good documentation. Address the issues above along with the high-priority issues from the existing review before merging. |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. @github-actions, thank you for this thorough additional analysis! These are excellent findings that complement the existing reviews. Let me provide feedback on each: Issue 8: Missing Environment Variable Support ✅ ValidThis is a genuine gap in the implementation. The feature is implemented and tested but cannot be used in production. Your JSON-based environment variable suggestion is the right approach: Recommendations:
Alternative consideration: If JSON in environment variables feels clunky, you could also support a file-based configuration: config_file = os.environ.get("QUALITY_GATES_CONFIG_FILE")
if config_file and os.path.exists(config_file):
with open(config_file) as f:
custom_category_rules = json.load(f).get("custom_category_rules")Issue 9: Silent Fallback Without Warning ✅ ValidThis is an important user experience issue. Your logging suggestion is spot-on. I'd slightly refine it to also log when valid custom gates are being used: if custom_gates is not None:
applicable_gates = custom_gates
logger.info(
f"Using custom gate rules for category '{category.value}': "
f"{[g.value for g in custom_gates]}"
)
else:
applicable_gates = rules.get_applicable_gates(category)
if config.custom_category_rules and category.value in config.custom_category_rules:
logger.warning(
f"Custom rules for '{category.value}' were ignored due to invalid gate names. "
f"Configured: {config.custom_category_rules[category.value]}. "
f"Valid gates: {[g.value for g in QualityGateType]}"
)Issue 10: Documentation Gap ✅ ValidAgreed. Once Issue 8 is implemented, documentation should include:
Issue 11: Thread Safety
|
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. @github-actions, thank you for the comprehensive summary! This is a great consolidation of the key findings. Quick Recap for @frankbriaYour PR is in excellent shape with good test coverage and architecture. Here's what needs attention before merge: Must address:
Nice to have:
The implementation is solid—these are polish items to make the feature production-ready and user-friendly. Once Issues 8 and 9 are addressed, this will be ready to merge! 🚀 |
- Replace hardcoded gate count with len(QualityGateType) - Pass task_category through gate methods to _create_quality_blocker - Add logging for invalid gate names in custom config rules - Add warning when coverage check skipped (pytest-cov not installed) - Add error handling for database update in run_all_gates - Normalize task title/description to handle None values - Return copy of gate rules list to prevent mutation
Additional Review FindingsI've analyzed this PR thoroughly, reviewing the code changes and considering the excellent feedback from previous reviews (@github-actions, @macroscopeapp, @coderabbitai). ✅ Issues Already Addressed in Latest CodeLooking at the current codebase, several high-priority issues mentioned in earlier reviews have already been fixed:
🔴 Remaining High Priority IssueIssue 1: custom_category_rules Cannot Be Configured via Environment VariablesFile: The feature exists and is tested, but there's no environment variable to configure it in production. Users cannot use custom gate rules without modifying code. Current code: Recommendation: Add JSON-based environment variable support: Why this matters:
🟡 Medium Priority IssuesIssue 2: No Warning When Custom Rules Produce Empty Gate ListFile: If a user configures custom rules but all gate names are invalid (e.g., typos), the code silently falls back to default rules. Users won't know their configuration was ignored. Recommendation: Add warning when custom rules exist but produce empty list: Issue 3: Coverage Gate May Mislead When pytest-cov Not InstalledFile: When pytest-cov is not installed, the gate passes with and . This could mislead users into thinking they have perfect coverage when no measurement actually occurred. Current behavior: Consideration: This is intentional (don't block tasks when tool unavailable), but there are alternatives:
The current behavior is reasonable for a development environment, but consider documenting this limitation clearly. 🔵 Low Priority / SuggestionsIssue 4: Document custom_category_rules UsageOnce Issue #1 is implemented, add documentation:
Issue 5: Consider Thread Safety for Singleton ConfigFile: The singleton pattern is not thread-safe. In concurrent execution (if implemented later), multiple objects could be created. Impact: Low risk for current sequential execution. Only relevant if concurrent gate execution is added. Recommendation: If concurrency is added in the future, use : 📊 Overall AssessmentCode Quality: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent
Test Coverage: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent
Security: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ No concerns
🎯 Recommended Action PlanBefore merge:
After merge:
✨ SummaryThis is a well-implemented feature that effectively solves the problem of false gate failures for non-code tasks. The test coverage is excellent, and the code quality is high. Key observation: Several high-priority issues mentioned in earlier reviews have already been fixed in the current codebase. The main remaining issue is the configuration gap for custom_category_rules (Issue #1), which prevents users from actually using this feature in production. Once Issues #1 and #2 are addressed, this PR will be ready to merge! 🚀 |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. 🧩 Analysis chain🏁 Script executed: Length of output: 3460 🏁 Script executed: Length of output: 2146 🏁 Script executed: Length of output: 4039 @frankbria, I've verified the findings from the comprehensive review and can confirm the analysis is accurate. Here's my assessment based on the current code: ✅ Verified Critical IssueIssue #1: Confirmed - the field exists in the dataclass but is never populated from environment variables: # Line 122-130 in quality_gates_config.py
_config = QualityGatesConfig(
enable_task_classification=_parse_bool_env("QUALITY_GATES_ENABLE_TASK_CLASSIFICATION", True),
strict_mode=_parse_bool_env("QUALITY_GATES_STRICT_MODE", False),
# ❌ custom_category_rules is missing here
)Recommended fix (add to def _parse_custom_rules_env() -> Optional[Dict[str, List[str]]]:
"""Parse custom category rules from environment variable."""
rules_json = os.environ.get("QUALITY_GATES_CUSTOM_CATEGORY_RULES")
if not rules_json:
return None
try:
rules = json.loads(rules_json)
if not isinstance(rules, dict):
logger.error("QUALITY_GATES_CUSTOM_CATEGORY_RULES must be a JSON object")
return None
return rules
except json.JSONDecodeError as e:
logger.error(f"Failed to parse QUALITY_GATES_CUSTOM_CATEGORY_RULES: {e}")
return None
# Then in get_quality_gates_config():
_config = QualityGatesConfig(
enable_task_classification=_parse_bool_env("QUALITY_GATES_ENABLE_TASK_CLASSIFICATION", True),
strict_mode=_parse_bool_env("QUALITY_GATES_STRICT_MODE", False),
custom_category_rules=_parse_custom_rules_env(), # ✅ Add this
)
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In @codeframe/config/quality_gates_config.py:
- Around line 110-132: get_quality_gates_config currently does not populate the
QualityGatesConfig.custom_category_rules from env, so add loading of
QUALITY_GATES_CUSTOM_RULES inside get_quality_gates_config when _config is None:
read os.environ.get("QUALITY_GATES_CUSTOM_RULES"), if present parse with
json.loads into the expected structure (fallback to [] or {} matching
QualityGatesConfig default), catch JSONDecodeError and log/error then use the
default, and pass the parsed value into the QualityGatesConfig constructor along
with enable_task_classification and strict_mode so _config includes
custom_category_rules.
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
codeframe/lib/quality_gate_rules.py (2)
94-99: Missing skip reasons for TESTING category.The TESTING category skips TYPE_CHECK, LINTING, and CODE_REVIEW gates (per
_GATE_RULES), but_SKIP_REASONSonly defines reasons for these three gates. The generic fallback message (line 158) will be used, but explicit reasons would provide better context to users.📝 Suggested addition to _SKIP_REASONS
TaskCategory.TESTING: { QualityGateType.TYPE_CHECK: "Test code may use dynamic patterns that fail type checks", QualityGateType.LINTING: "Test code may use patterns that trigger linting warnings", QualityGateType.CODE_REVIEW: "Test code is validated through execution rather than review", }, + TaskCategory.CODE_IMPLEMENTATION: {}, + TaskCategory.REFACTORING: {}, + TaskCategory.MIXED: {}, }
128-139: Minor inefficiency:get_applicable_gatescalled redundantly.
should_skip_gatecallsget_applicable_gates, which creates a new list each time. For frequent calls, this could be optimized by checking directly against_GATE_RULES. However, given the current usage pattern, this is acceptable.♻️ Optional optimization
def should_skip_gate(self, category: TaskCategory, gate: QualityGateType) -> bool: - applicable_gates = self.get_applicable_gates(category) - return gate not in applicable_gates + gates = _GATE_RULES.get(category, _GATE_RULES[TaskCategory.MIXED]) + return gate not in gatescodeframe/agents/worker_agent.py (1)
1400-1411: Consider simplifying withgetattrinstead of repeatedhasattrchecks.The
hasattrchecks suggest uncertainty aboutQualityGateResult's attributes. IfQualityGateResultalways hasskipped_gatesandtask_category(as the AI summary indicates), these checks are unnecessary. If backward compatibility is needed,getattris cleaner.♻️ Suggested simplification
# Build completion message with task classification info from codeframe.core.models import QualityGateType total_gates = len(QualityGateType) - skipped_count = quality_result.gates_skipped_count if hasattr(quality_result, 'gates_skipped_count') else 0 - task_category = quality_result.task_category if hasattr(quality_result, 'task_category') else None + skipped_count = getattr(quality_result, 'gates_skipped_count', 0) + task_category = getattr(quality_result, 'task_category', None)codeframe/config/quality_gates_config.py (1)
106-132: Thread safety note for future concurrent execution.The singleton pattern using a module-level
_configvariable is safe for sequential execution. If concurrent task processing is added, consider addingthreading.Lockprotection around the initialization check.As noted in PR comments (Issue 11), this is low priority unless concurrency is introduced.
codeframe/lib/quality_gates.py (1)
677-690: Consider logging when custom rules are applied.When
custom_gatesis not None (custom rules are used), there's no log message indicating custom rules override defaults. This would help with debugging configuration issues.📝 Suggested logging addition
if config.should_use_task_classification(): # Check for custom rules first custom_gates = config.get_custom_gates_for_category(category.value) if custom_gates is not None: applicable_gates = custom_gates + logger.info( + f"Using custom gate rules for category '{category.value}': " + f"{[g.value for g in applicable_gates]}" + ) else: applicable_gates = rules.get_applicable_gates(category)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
codeframe/agents/worker_agent.pycodeframe/config/quality_gates_config.pycodeframe/lib/quality_gate_rules.pycodeframe/lib/quality_gates.pycodeframe/lib/task_classifier.py
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
codeframe/**/*.py
📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)
codeframe/**/*.py: Use Python 3.11+ for backend development
Use FastAPI framework for backend API development
Use SQLite with async support (aiosqlite) for database operations
Use tiktoken for token counting
Run linting with ruff check .
Import and use domain-specific repositories from codeframe/persistence/repositories/ for data access instead of direct database calls
Files:
codeframe/lib/quality_gate_rules.pycodeframe/agents/worker_agent.pycodeframe/lib/task_classifier.pycodeframe/lib/quality_gates.pycodeframe/config/quality_gates_config.py
🧠 Learnings (1)
📚 Learning: 2025-12-17T19:21:40.014Z
Learnt from: frankbria
Repo: frankbria/codeframe PR: 128
File: tests/agents/test_bottleneck_detection.py:486-500
Timestamp: 2025-12-17T19:21:40.014Z
Learning: In tests/agents/test_bottleneck_detection.py, test_skip_agents_below_threshold should be async and mock _get_agent_workload to return workload below AGENT_OVERLOAD_THRESHOLD (5) while providing non-empty tasks list to prevent early return in detect_bottlenecks().
Applied to files:
codeframe/agents/worker_agent.py
🧬 Code graph analysis (4)
codeframe/agents/worker_agent.py (2)
codeframe/core/models.py (2)
QualityGateType(158-166)gates_skipped_count(938-940)web-ui/src/types/qualityGates.ts (1)
QualityGateType(12-12)
codeframe/lib/task_classifier.py (2)
codeframe/core/models.py (2)
Task(257-305)title(242-243)tests/lib/test_quality_gates.py (3)
task(56-79)task(467-488)task(901-924)
codeframe/lib/quality_gates.py (5)
codeframe/config/quality_gates_config.py (3)
get_quality_gates_config(110-132)should_use_task_classification(46-54)get_custom_gates_for_category(56-85)codeframe/lib/task_classifier.py (2)
TaskClassifier(94-188)classify_task(122-188)codeframe/lib/quality_gate_rules.py (4)
QualityGateRules(102-159)get_applicable_gates(115-126)all_gates(111-113)get_skip_reason(141-159)codeframe/core/models.py (5)
Task(257-305)QualityGateResult(906-940)id(230-231)QualityGateType(158-166)status(246-247)codeframe/agents/worker_agent.py (1)
_create_quality_blocker(1462-1527)
codeframe/config/quality_gates_config.py (1)
codeframe/core/models.py (1)
QualityGateType(158-166)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (4)
- GitHub Check: Frontend Unit Tests
- GitHub Check: Backend Unit Tests
- GitHub Check: E2E Smoke Tests (Chromium)
- GitHub Check: opencode-review
🔇 Additional comments (17)
codeframe/lib/quality_gate_rules.py (1)
110-126: LGTM! Defensive coding pattern properly implemented.The
all_gatesproperty returns a new list, andget_applicable_gatesreturns a copy vialist(gates). This prevents external mutation of internal state.codeframe/lib/task_classifier.py (4)
31-43: LGTM! Good use ofstrmixin for JSON serialization.Inheriting from
strandEnumensuresTaskCategory.DESIGN.valuereturns"design"and the enum serializes cleanly to JSON.
115-120: LGTM! Efficient regex pattern compilation.Sorting keywords by length descending ensures longer keywords match first (e.g., "documentation" before "doc"), and using
re.escapeprevents regex injection from keyword values.
167-171: Verify: CONFIGURATION excluded from MIXED detection.
has_strong_non_codeonly includeshas_design or has_doc, excludinghas_config. This means a task with both "implement" and "configure" would classify as CODE_IMPLEMENTATION, not MIXED.Is this intentional? Configuration + code tasks might warrant MIXED classification to ensure all gates run.
140-143: LGTM! Defensive None handling.Using
or ""pattern correctly handlesNonevalues fortask.titleandtask.description, preventingTypeErrorwhen concatenating or calling.lower().codeframe/agents/worker_agent.py (2)
1417-1426: LGTM! Success payload properly includes classification context.The return payload correctly includes
task_categoryandskipped_gates, enabling downstream consumers to understand which gates were applied.
1447-1460: LGTM! Failure path includes consistent classification context.The blocked/failure return includes
task_categoryandskipped_gates, maintaining consistency with the success path.codeframe/config/quality_gates_config.py (2)
73-85: LGTM! Invalid gate names handled gracefully with logging (Issue 9).The warning log at line 80-83 correctly notifies users when invalid gate names are provided in
custom_category_rules, showing both the invalid name and valid options.
135-141: LGTM! Test-friendly cache reset.
reset_config()properly clears the cached configuration, enabling clean test isolation.codeframe/lib/quality_gates.py (8)
55-58: LGTM! Clean imports for new classification modules.Imports for configuration, classifier, and rules modules are properly organized.
701-712: LGTM! Robust error handling for database updates.Wrapping the
requires_human_approvalflag update in try/except prevents quality gate execution from failing due to transient database errors.
306-311: LGTM! Helpful warning when coverage is skipped.The warning clearly indicates the task ID, reason for skipping, and that the gate passed by default. This addresses observability concerns.
993-1006: LGTM! Graceful handling of missing pytest-cov.The implementation correctly detects missing pytest-cov by checking output strings and returns a skip-like result with
coverage_pct=100.0to pass by default, with clear logging.
838-879: LGTM! Separation of test execution and coverage collection.Running pytest without
--covflags ensures tests can run even without pytest-cov installed. Coverage is collected separately by_run_coverage().
1158-1188: LGTM! Blocker messages enhanced with category context.The updated
_create_quality_blockermethod now includes task category and guidance notes, providing users with better context about which gates were applied and why.
1229-1267: LGTM! Category-specific guidance is helpful.The
_get_category_guidancemethod provides actionable guidance for each task category, helping users understand when to update task titles or split tasks.
778-779: LGTM! QualityGateResult correctly populated with classification data.The result includes both
skipped_gatesandtask_category, enabling downstream consumers to understand the gate execution context.
- Add QUALITY_GATES_CUSTOM_RULES env var for custom category-to-gates mapping
- Add _parse_json_env function with validation and error handling
- Add warning when all custom gate names are invalid (fallback to defaults)
- Add comprehensive tests for JSON parsing edge cases
Usage example:
QUALITY_GATES_CUSTOM_RULES='{"design": ["code_review"], "documentation": ["linting"]}'
PR Review: Task Classification for Quality GatesI've reviewed this PR and analyzed the code changes, considering the excellent feedback from previous reviews (@github-actions, @macroscopeapp, @coderabbitai). ✅ Issues Already Addressed in Latest CommitsBased on the git history, several high-priority issues have been fixed:
🟡 Minor Improvements Suggested1. Add Info Log When Custom Rules Are AppliedFile: When custom rules are used, there's no log indicating this configuration override. Adding an info log would improve debugging: if custom_gates is not None:
applicable_gates = custom_gates
logger.info(
f"Using custom gate rules for category '{category.value}': "
f"{[g.value for g in applicable_gates]}"
)Rationale: While invalid custom rules trigger warnings (lines 94-98), valid custom rules are silently applied. Logging this would help verify configuration is working as expected. 2. Coverage Gate Behavior ClarificationFile: When "coverage_pct": 100.0, # Pass if tool not availableCurrent Behavior: Intentional design to not block tasks when tools are unavailable Suggestion: The current implementation is reasonable for development environments, and the warning at lines 996-999 provides context. However, consider:
3. Thread Safety Consideration (Low Priority)File: The singleton pattern is not thread-safe: _config: Optional[QualityGatesConfig] = None
def get_quality_gates_config() -> QualityGatesConfig:
global _config
if _config is None: # Potential race condition
_config = QualityGatesConfig(...)Impact: Low risk for current sequential execution model. Only relevant if concurrent gate execution is added in the future. Future-proofing: If concurrency is added, use import threading
_config_lock = threading.Lock()
def get_quality_gates_config() -> QualityGatesConfig:
global _config
if _config is None:
with _config_lock:
if _config is None: # Double-check pattern
_config = QualityGatesConfig(...)
return _config✅ Code Quality AssessmentArchitecture: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent
Error Handling: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent
Logging: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent
Performance: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent
Type Safety: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent
📊 Test CoverageBased on PR description: 129 tests across 4 test files
Coverage: Excellent ✅ The tests cover:
📝 SummaryThis is a well-implemented feature that effectively solves the stated problem of false gate failures for non-code tasks. The code quality is high, test coverage is excellent, and most issues from previous reviews have been addressed. Key Strengths:
Action Items:
Recommendation: ✅ Merge Ready The suggested improvements are minor enhancements and don't block merging. The implementation is production-ready. Thanks for the excellent work on this feature! 🚀 |
|
I've completed my review of PR #261 and posted a comprehensive comment. Here's my summary: Review SummaryThis is a well-implemented feature with excellent code quality and test coverage (129 tests). Most issues identified in previous reviews have been addressed in recent commits. ✅ Issues Already Fixed
🟡 Minor Suggestions
Overall Assessment
Recommendation: ✅ Merge ReadyThe suggested improvements are optional and don't block merging. The implementation is production-ready and effectively solves the problem of false gate failures for non-code tasks. Review posted at: #261 (comment) |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. @github-actions, thank you for this exceptionally thorough and well-structured review! It's great to see the comprehensive analysis acknowledging the recent fixes and improvements. Response to Minor Improvement Suggestions1. ✅ Info Log for Custom Rules ApplicationExcellent suggestion! Adding an info log when custom rules are successfully applied would indeed improve debugging and configuration verification. This creates a nice symmetry:
Your proposed implementation at 2. 📝 Coverage Gate Behavior DocumentationYou've correctly identified the intentional design choice here. The current behavior is:
Your documentation suggestion is the right approach. The implementation is sound for development workflows; it just needs clear documentation explaining:
3. 🔮 Thread Safety Future-ProofingAccurate assessment. The current singleton pattern (lines 178-179) is sufficient for sequential execution, and the double-checked locking pattern you've outlined is the standard solution if concurrency is added later. Given the current architecture doesn't require concurrent gate execution, this can safely remain in the "future consideration" category unless parallelization is planned. Final ThoughtsYour assessment is spot-on: this is production-ready code with excellent architecture, comprehensive test coverage (129 tests!), and good error handling. The three suggestions are polish items that enhance observability and documentation rather than fix functional issues. Priority recommendations:
The PR successfully solves the core problem of preventing false gate failures for non-code tasks while maintaining backward compatibility and configurability. Great work by @frankbria! 🚀 |
Summary
Implements an intelligent task classification system that determines which quality gates should apply to each task based on its characteristics. This prevents false failures when non-code tasks (design, documentation) go through code-specific quality gates.
Problem Solved: When
complete_task()was called for tasks like "Design database schema for events", all quality gates ran unconditionally, creating impossible-to-resolve blockers because:pytest --covwhich fails if pytest-cov isn't installedSolution: Task classification based on keyword analysis of task title/description, with selective gate execution.
Changes
New Modules
codeframe/lib/task_classifier.py- Classifies tasks into categories using keyword analysiscodeframe/lib/quality_gate_rules.py- Defines which gates apply to each categorycodeframe/config/quality_gates_config.py- Environment-based configurationModified Files
codeframe/lib/quality_gates.py- Updatedrun_all_gates()for selective executioncodeframe/core/models.py- Addedskipped_gatesandtask_categorytoQualityGateResultcodeframe/agents/worker_agent.py- Updated completion messages with gate statusTask Categories & Applicable Gates
Configuration
Environment variables for toggling behavior:
QUALITY_GATES_ENABLE_TASK_CLASSIFICATION=true(default) - Enable/disable classificationQUALITY_GATES_STRICT_MODE=false(default) - Run all gates regardless of task typeTest plan
uv run pytest tests/lib/test_task_classifier.py- 39 tests passinguv run pytest tests/lib/test_quality_gate_rules.py- 19 tests passinguv run pytest tests/lib/test_quality_gates.py- 54 tests passinguv run pytest tests/config/test_quality_gates_config.py- 17 tests passinguv run ruff check- All checks passeduv run mypy- No issues foundSummary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Improvements
Tests
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.