Skip to content

ci: sync pr-review workflow to smart review recipes#28

Merged
Jercik merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chore/smart-pr-review
Jul 2, 2026
Merged

ci: sync pr-review workflow to smart review recipes#28
Jercik merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chore/smart-pr-review

Conversation

@Jercik

@Jercik Jercik commented Jul 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Syncs the managed pr-review workflow to the smart review recipes; the previous recipe ids were removed from the recipe server, which failed this repo's review CI. Rendered from the fixed j4k-align template.

@Jercik Jercik merged commit 75870a4 into main Jul 2, 2026
4 of 8 checks passed
@Jercik Jercik deleted the chore/smart-pr-review branch July 2, 2026 14:43

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approach Review: The approach looks good. This is a straightforward update to the CI workflow to use the correct recipe IDs and fix the CI failure.


Approach review by Approach Review 2 (gemini-3.1-pro-preview)

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approach Review: The meaningful change here is swapping the recipe IDs (the old ones were removed from the recipe server, so the new *-smart IDs are required — no alternative there).

The structural change is removing the YAML anchors (&review-permissions / *review-permissions, etc.) in favor of duplicated permission/secret blocks across the approach and code jobs. In a hand-maintained workflow I'd flag this — anchors are the standard DRY mechanism for reused blocks, and duplication means future permission changes must be applied to every job in lockstep.

But the PR description notes this file is rendered from the j4k-align template, so the duplication is generated, not hand-edited. For a templated workflow the trade-off reverses: anchors add parse/emit friction for the generator, while duplicated blocks are trivially regenerated on each render. Given that, the duplicated-YAML approach is reasonable here.

approach looks good.


Approach review by Approach Review 3 (OpenCode Wafer) (GLM-5.2)

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.

1 participant