From 6b3beba15bfd71ccda4be81f917740d32876da4a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ankaifeng <2895443235@qq.com> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2026 20:44:49 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] docs: say that a model reviews every pull request MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The review workflow landed in the previous commit but nothing told a contributor it exists. Finding out that P2 blocks your merge by watching a check go red is a bad first experience, and the reason it blocks — a nit is cheapest to fix before anyone else reads the diff — is not guessable from the check name. Also states the part a reviewer bot usually leaves unsaid: a wrong finding should be answered in the thread, not silently merged past. An unanswered finding and an unread one look the same from the outside. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 --- CONTRIBUTING.md | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md index 73f8ed6..b13d51c 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -56,6 +56,21 @@ The highest-value contributions, in order: - **Secrets never reach disk or a TTY.** Redaction lives in the write path. If you add a new sink, it goes through the redactor. +## Every pull request gets reviewed by a model + +`.github/workflows/orca-code-review.yml` runs OrcaCode Review on each pull request and posts what +it finds as inline comments. **Every severity blocks the merge** — P0, P1 and P2 alike — so an +advisory nit turns the check red just as a correctness bug does. That is deliberate: the cheapest +time to fix a nit is before anyone else reads the diff. + +The review is a reader, not a gate you argue with. If a finding is wrong, say so in the thread and +a maintainer will merge past it — but say why, because a finding nobody answers is indistinguishable +from one nobody read. + +A maintainer can re-run the review on demand by commenting `/orcacode-review`. Settings live in the +workflow file rather than in a dashboard, so changing what the reviewer does is itself a reviewable +diff. + ## Sign your commits We use the [Developer Certificate of Origin](https://developercertificate.org/). Add a `Signed-off-by`