Skip to content

[caveman] Optimize instruction verbosity — contribution-checker.agent.md (2026-05-31) #3123

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
amalgamated-bot wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+8 −20
Open

[caveman] Optimize instruction verbosity — contribution-checker.agent.md (2026-05-31) #3123

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
28 changes: 8 additions & 20 deletions .github/agents/contribution-checker.agent.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3,10 +3,6 @@ description: Evaluate a single PR against the target repository's CONTRIBUTING.m
user-invokable: false
---

# Contribution Checker — Single PR Evaluator

Evaluate a PR (`owner/repo#number`) against the repository's `CONTRIBUTING.md` and return a structured verdict.

## Step 1: Fetch Contributing Guidelines

If content is inline (inside `<contributing-guidelines>` tags), use it. If it is `# No CONTRIBUTING.md found`, return verdict `❓` and quality `no-guidelines`.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -80,28 +76,20 @@ Field constraints: `verdict` ∈ {🔴,⚠️,🟡,🟢,❓}; `on_topic` ∈ {ye

The `comment` field is a markdown string posted to the PR. It must contain:

1. **Encouraging opening** — acknowledge the contribution and mention something specific (feature area, bug being fixed, etc.).
2. **Actionable feedback** — for `needs-work` / 🟡 / ⚠️ / 🔴, list concrete suggestions tied to the checklist results (missing tests, unfocused diff, missing description). Be constructive and specific.
3. **Agentic prompt** — a fenced ` ```prompt ` block with a ready-to-use instruction the contributor can hand to their AI coding agent.
1. **Encouraging opening** — acknowledge the contribution with a specific detail.
2. **Actionable feedback** — for `needs-work` / 🟡 / ⚠️ / 🔴, list concrete suggestions (missing tests, unfocused diff, missing description).
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@greptile-apps greptile-apps Bot May 31, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 The phrase "Be constructive and specific" was dropped from item 2 along with "tied to the checklist results." Both serve as quality-shaping signals for the agent — without them, feedback suggestions in the comment field may become generic rather than grounded in the actual checklist outcomes. Re-adding just "Be specific" preserves the intent without adding tokens back.

Suggested change
2. **Actionable feedback** — for `needs-work` / 🟡 / ⚠️ / 🔴, list concrete suggestions (missing tests, unfocused diff, missing description).
2. **Actionable feedback** — for `needs-work` / 🟡 / ⚠️ / 🔴, list concrete suggestions tied to checklist results (missing tests, unfocused diff, missing description). Be specific.
Prompt To Fix With AI 
This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: .github/agents/contribution-checker.agent.md
Line: 80

Comment:
The phrase "Be constructive and specific" was dropped from item 2 along with "tied to the checklist results." Both serve as quality-shaping signals for the agent — without them, feedback suggestions in the `comment` field may become generic rather than grounded in the actual checklist outcomes. Re-adding just "Be specific" preserves the intent without adding tokens back.

```suggestion
2. **Actionable feedback** — for `needs-work` / 🟡 / ⚠️ / 🔴, list concrete suggestions tied to checklist results (missing tests, unfocused diff, missing description). Be specific.
```

How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.

Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!

Fix in Claude Code

3. **Agentic prompt** — a fenced ` ```prompt ` block for the contributor's AI agent. For `lgtm`: congratulate and note PR is ready; omit prompt block.

For `lgtm`, just congratulate the contributor and note the PR looks ready for review. Omit the prompt block.

Example for a `needs-work` PR:
Example (`needs-work`):

```markdown
Hey @alice 👋 — thanks for working on the auth refactor! Here are a few things that would help get this across the finish line:

- **Add tests** — the new rate-limiting logic in `src/auth/limiter.ts` doesn't have coverage yet. Unit tests for the happy path and the throttled case would go a long way.
- **Split the PR** — this mixes the auth refactor with the rate-limiting feature. Consider separating them so reviewers can focus on one thing at a time.
Hey @alice 👋 — thanks for the auth refactor! A few things to address:

If you'd like a hand, you can assign this prompt to your coding agent:
- **Add tests** — `src/auth/limiter.ts` needs unit tests (happy path + throttled case).
- **Split the PR** — auth refactor and rate-limiting should be separate PRs.

` `` prompt
Add unit tests for the rate-limiting middleware in src/auth/limiter.ts.
Cover the following scenarios:
1. Request under the limit — should pass through.
2. Request at the limit — should return 429.
3. Limit reset after window expires.
Add unit tests for `src/auth/limiter.ts`: (1) request under limit passes, (2) at limit returns 429, (3) limit resets after window.
` ``
```

Expand Down
Loading