feat(skill): strengthen orchestration quality loop - #120
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 44 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe phase-delivery skill now classifies implementer effort by semantic risk, forwards read-only reviewer must-cover bullets before implementation, requires complete grouped candidate reviews, and updates supporting protocol, design, evaluation, and trigger documentation. ChangesOrchestration quality loop
Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~20 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ce23d3e7c9
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In @.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/evals/evals.json:
- Around line 6-18: Expand the assertions in the phase-start evaluation case to
require ledger initialization, initial admission of GF-011, GF-012, and GF-013,
and no new reviewer, planning gate, package review, digest approval, external
activation issue, or ledger field. Add candidate-refresh assertions requiring a
newly committed post-rebase candidate, execution of every applicable check with
ledger evidence, and same-reviewer incremental re-review before acceptance.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: b194ec0b-8f7c-46ee-91db-d0606a907cb3
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/README.md.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/SKILL.md.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/evals/evals.json.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/evals/trigger_queries.json.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/implementer-review-design.md.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/references/phase-protocol.md
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/evals/evals.json (1)
19-20: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winEnforce the reviewer no-checks boundary across preparation and re-review.
The assertions require read-only reviewers but do not explicitly prohibit running checks. The protocol requires reviewers to remain read-only and never run checks, repair evidence, or mutate repository/provider state.
.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/evals/evals.json#L19-L20: require the pre-write reviewer to produce bullets without running checks or mutating state..agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/evals/evals.json#L36-L36: require the same reviewer’s post-rebase incremental pass to retain that boundary.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In @.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/evals/evals.json around lines 19 - 20, The reviewer assertions must explicitly preserve the read-only, no-checks boundary during both preparation and post-rebase re-review. In .agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/evals/evals.json lines 19-20, require the pre-write reviewer to produce must-cover bullets without running checks, repairing evidence, or mutating repository or provider state; apply the same requirement to the reviewer’s incremental pass at lines 36-36.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In @.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/evals/evals.json:
- Line 36: Update the rebase requirement assertion in the applicable eval entry
so same-reviewer incremental re-review explicitly preserves the no-checks
boundary: require the reviewer to remain read-only and not run checks during
that pass, alongside the existing candidate, required-check, ledger-evidence,
and re-review requirements.
- Around line 13-14: Update the assertions for the GF-012 scenario in the
evaluation entry to require that GF-012 reaches a terminally blocked state, not
merely that a block is localized. Preserve the existing capacity and exclusion
assertions while adding an explicit check for the terminal blocked status.
---
Outside diff comments:
In @.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/evals/evals.json:
- Around line 19-20: The reviewer assertions must explicitly preserve the
read-only, no-checks boundary during both preparation and post-rebase re-review.
In .agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/evals/evals.json lines 19-20,
require the pre-write reviewer to produce must-cover bullets without running
checks, repairing evidence, or mutating repository or provider state; apply the
same requirement to the reviewer’s incremental pass at lines 36-36.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 8e11bcdd-87d4-4a12-b0a4-577a62e1cdf0
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/evals/evals.json
1 participant
Summary
Validation
node --test .agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/scripts/validate-track.test.mjspython3 .agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-delivery/scripts/validate_evals.pypython3 /Users/aryekogan/repos/agents/skills/open-skill-creator/scripts/validate_skill.py .agents/skills/orchestrate-phase-deliverypnpm delivery:checkpnpm format:checkpnpm links:checkpnpm checkgit diff --checkSummary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
Tests