Merge branch 'main' into night-watch/PRDs-web-ui

Author: Test User

.github/workflows/pr-review.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+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:
+          github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
+          open_router_key: ${{ secrets.OPEN_ROUTER_KEY }}
+          model_id: 'z-ai/glm-5'
+          # model_id: 'openai/gpt-5.2-codex'
+          # reasoning_effort: 'xhigh'
+          max_tokens: '4096'
+          max_pr_reviews: '2'
+          cooldown_period: '5'
+          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, adherence to best practices, performance optimizations, and testing coverage. 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.
+            6. **Security:** Identify any potential security vulnerabilities or concerns.
+            7. **Bugs Found:** List any bugs identified in the PR.
+            8. **Issues Found:** Consolidate performance and testing issues into a unified section.
+
+            **Critical Instructions:**
+             - 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. Don't be redundant.
+
+            **Scoring Criteria:**
+            - 90-100: Exceptional quality
+              • Clean, efficient, and well-documented code
+              • Comprehensive test coverage (>90%)
+              • Follows all best practices and design patterns
+              • No security vulnerabilities
+              • Optimal performance considerations
+              • Clear documentation and comments
+
+            - 75-89: High quality
+              • Well-structured and maintainable code
+              • Good test coverage (70-90%)
+              • Minor optimization opportunities
+              • No critical security issues
+              • Few non-critical issues
+              • Adequate documentation
+
+            - 60-74: Average quality
+              • Functional but needs improvement
+              • Basic test coverage (40-70%)
+              • Some code duplication
+              • Multiple minor issues
+              • Basic security considerations
+              • Limited documentation
+
+            - 40-59: Below average
+              • Significant structural issues
+              • Poor test coverage (<40%)
+              • Multiple security concerns
+              • Performance bottlenecks
+              • Inadequate error handling
+              • Missing or unclear documentation
+
+            - 0-39: Poor quality
+              • Major architectural problems
+              • Missing or broken tests
+              • Critical security vulnerabilities
+              • Severe performance issues
+              • No error handling
+              • No documentation
+              • Breaking changes without justification
+
+            **Review Structure:**
+
+            1. **Overall Summary**
+               - **Score:** Provide a score from 0-100.
+               - **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, if any.
+               - Provide actionable suggestions for each identified issue.
+
+            4. **Bugs Found** (if any)
+               - Present any bugs identified in the PR in a table format.
+               - **Table Columns:** Bug Name, Affected Files, Description, Confidence (High 🟢, Medium 🟡, Low 🔴)
+
+            5. **Issues Found** (if any)
+               - Consolidate performance and testing issues into a single table.
+               - **Table Columns:** Issue Type, Issue Name, Affected Components, Description, Impact/Severity
+
+            6. **Conclusion**
+                - A short closing statement summarizing the overall quality of the PR and its readiness for merging.
+
+            **Example Output:**
+
+            ### **AI Review Summary**
+
+            **🏆 Overall Score:** 85/100
+
+            *The PR successfully implements XYZ with clean and well-structured code.*
+
+            **✅ Key Strengths**
+            - **Feature Implementation:** Effectively adds the new feature
+            - **Code Structure:** Well-organized with logical separation of concerns
+
+            **⚠️ Areas for Improvement**
+            - **Error Handling:** Implement more robust error handling
+
+            **🔚 Conclusion**  
+            *The PR is well-executed. Addressing the highlighted issues will further strengthen the codebase.*

docs/configuration.md

@@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ All Night Watch env vars are prefixed with `NW_`:
 | `NW_REVIEWER_SCHEDULE` | `reviewerSchedule` |
 | `NW_PROVIDER` | `provider` |
 | `NW_REVIEWER_ENABLED` | `reviewerEnabled` |
+| `NW_REVIEWER_PARALLEL` | reviewer parallel fan-out (`1` enabled, `0` disabled) |
 | `NW_FALLBACK_ON_RATE_LIMIT` | `fallbackOnRateLimit` |
 | `NW_CLAUDE_MODEL` | `claudeModel` |
 

scripts/night-watch-helpers.sh

@@ -305,17 +305,25 @@ find_eligible_prd() {
 }
 
 # ── Clean up worktrees ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
-# Removes any worktrees with "-nw-" in the path (night-watch worktrees).
+# Removes night-watch worktrees for this project.
+# Optional second argument narrows cleanup to worktrees containing that token.
+# This prevents parallel reviewer workers from deleting each other's worktrees.
 
 cleanup_worktrees() {
   local project_dir="${1:?project_dir required}"
+  local scope="${2:-}"
   local project_name
   project_name=$(basename "${project_dir}")
 
+  local match_token="${project_name}-nw"
+  if [ -n "${scope}" ]; then
+    match_token="${scope}"
+  fi
+
   git -C "${project_dir}" worktree list --porcelain 2>/dev/null \
     | grep '^worktree ' \
     | awk '{print $2}' \
-    | grep "${project_name}-nw" \
+    | grep -F "${match_token}" \
     | while read -r wt; do
         log "CLEANUP: Removing leftover worktree ${wt}"
         git -C "${project_dir}" worktree remove --force "${wt}" 2>/dev/null || true