Skip to content

ci: enable Claude PR review with RFC-review guidance#151

Merged
mwiebe merged 1 commit into
OpenJobDescription:mainlinefrom
leongdl:claude-rfc-review
Jul 17, 2026
Merged

ci: enable Claude PR review with RFC-review guidance#151
mwiebe merged 1 commit into
OpenJobDescription:mainlinefrom
leongdl:claude-rfc-review

Conversation

@leongdl

@leongdl leongdl commented Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Enables the automated Claude PR review on this repository, targeted at the reusable workflows in OpenJobDescription/.github (added in OpenJobDescription/.github#23), and adds repo-specific guidance so the reviewer reviews RFCs using the methodology in skills/openjd-rfc-review/SKILL.md.

Changes

  • .claude-review.md (new): repo-specific review guidance the reviewer reads from the base branch. It directs reviews of rfcs/ changes to follow the RFC review skill — alignment with the four design tenets (portable, expressive, human readable/writable, tooling parseable), RFC template completeness per rfcs/0000-template.md, compatibility with the 2023-09 Template Schemas specification, and the common RFC issues to call out (weak motivation, vague specification, missing rationale). It also gives lighter guidance for wiki/, conformance-tests/, and samples/ changes.
  • .github/workflows/claude_pr_review_collect.yml (retargeted): the existing Stage-1 stub now calls OpenJobDescription/.github instead of aws-deadline/.github.
  • .github/workflows/claude_pr_review.yml (retargeted): the existing Stage-2 stub now calls OpenJobDescription/.github, with a note about the .claude-review.md guidance.

Why the guidance is inlined rather than pointing at the skill file

At review time, files in the PR checkout come from the PR head, which is fork-controlled and treated as untrusted data — the reviewer must not take review instructions from it. The reusable workflow therefore reads .claude-review.md from the PR's base commit only. This file inlines the skill's methodology (well under the workflow's 16 KiB cap) and names skills/openjd-rfc-review/SKILL.md as the source of truth to keep in sync.

Testing

  • YAML syntax validated for both workflow stubs.
  • zizmor --min-severity high with the org's central zizmor.yml config: no findings in the two changed workflows (the 8 pre-existing high findings are unpinned-uses in check_samples.yml, conformance_tests*.yml, and publish_wiki.yml, untouched by this PR).

Dependencies / ordering

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

Opt in to the two-stage Claude PR-review integration hosted in
OpenJobDescription/.github (see OpenJobDescription/.github#23):

- claude_pr_review_collect.yml (Stage 1): pull_request-triggered no-op
  whose completion fires the workflow_run event. Fork PRs see no
  secrets and nothing this stage produces is trusted.
- claude_pr_review.yml (Stage 2): workflow_run-triggered caller that
  forwards the trusted head repo/SHA and the Bedrock OIDC role secret
  to the reusable review workflow.

Add .claude-review.md, the repo-specific guidance the reviewer reads
from the base branch. It directs reviews of rfcs/ changes to follow the
methodology in skills/openjd-rfc-review/SKILL.md: alignment with the
four design tenets (portable, expressive, human readable/writable,
tooling parseable), RFC template completeness, and compatibility with
the 2023-09 Template Schemas specification. The skill file remains the
source of truth; the guidance inlines the methodology because the
reviewer must not read review instructions from the PR head, which is
fork-controlled.

Signed-off-by: David Leong <116610336+leongdl@users.noreply.github.com>
@leongdl
leongdl requested a review from a team as a code owner July 16, 2026 22:07
@mwiebe
mwiebe merged commit 8b54d44 into OpenJobDescription:mainline Jul 17, 2026
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants