fix: use fully-qualified namespaced agent names throughout code-review command - #11
Merged
Conversation
Rewrites CLAUDE.md to serve as a genuine Claude Code session guide: - Add no-build-steps declaration (pure Markdown content repo) - Add branch workflow, commit type guide with Release Please impact - Add version drift warning (plugin.json v1.2.0 vs marketplace.json v1.0.0) - Add agent/skill frontmatter schema reference - Add environment variables for Bitbucket PR review - Document --focus options for /review-pr - Remove discoverable-by-ls content (17 lang reviewer names, 7 predictable command mappings) - Remove static GitHub repo metadata Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Remove "(9 個)" from Commands header (table only shows 2 key entries) - Replace pinned version numbers with a grep command to verify sync; specific versions rot once the drift is fixed Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…and agent/command distinction - Add directory structure overview with .claude-plugin/ explanation - Add PR creation gh api commands for labels/assignee - Enumerate all 17 language agents by name - Expand Commands table to list all 9 language commands - Note that 10 language agents have no corresponding /xxx-review command - Add step 5 to "新增 Agent" checklist (update CLAUDE.md counts) - Add step 4 to "新增 Command" checklist (update CLAUDE.md table)
- Fix version sync section: Release Please auto-syncs via extra-files; develop branch needs git merge origin/main after each release PR - Add current version (v1.2.0) to project overview - Add missing "新增 Skill" workflow (5 steps with subdirectory structure) - Fix Plugin Manifest update guidance: version is auto-synced, only keywords and description need manual updates - Fix directory structure comment to reflect auto-sync mechanism
Replace vague "push to main = 自動發布" with accurate flow: feat/fix commits → Release Please opens release PR on main → merging that PR triggers new version publish. Prevents confusion where any push to main is expected to immediately publish.
…ontext Inspired by CodeRabbit's architecture research: 1. /review-pr — Verification layer (Step 4): Replace simple dedupe with 5-step verification process: contradiction filter, confidence filter (≥80%), FP guard, and multi-agent agreement requirement. Batch delivery of findings only after all agents complete verification. 2. /review-pr & /code-review — Linked issues context: Fetch GitHub issues referenced in PR body (Fixes/Closes/ Resolves/Related to #N) and include issue title+description as review context. Reduces false positives by giving agents PR intent beyond just the diff. 3. /code-review — Incremental review mode (--from=<commit>): New --from=<commit> flag limits review scope to files changed since a given commit/branch (e.g. --from=main, --from=HEAD~3). Avoids re-reviewing already-reviewed code on large branches.
Closes the biggest recall gap vs CodeRabbit by adding explicit caller tracing to all three review entry points: - agents/code-reviewer.md: Expand Step 3 with Caller Tracing block — grep for all call sites of modified exported symbols, read 3-5 most relevant callers before applying review checklist - commands/review-pr.md: Step 2 now traces callers for each modified exported symbol found in the diff before running parallel agents - commands/code-review.md: GitHub PR Phase 2 CONTEXT gains Step 5 (Caller Tracing) after changed-files enumeration All three skip private/test-only symbols to prevent context explosion.
Phase 3 improvement: move static analysis from post-review validation
to pre-review context building, so agents review code with linter
signals already available.
- commands/code-review.md:
- Phase 2 gains Step 6 (Static Analysis): run tsc/lint/clippy/vet/ruff
before review starts, capture output (head -60 per tool)
- Phase 3 opens with cross-reference instruction: any file:line
already flagged by linter treated as elevated-confidence finding
- Phase 4 VALIDATE simplified to test + build only (lint/typecheck
already ran in Phase 2, results recorded there)
- commands/review-pr.md:
- Step 2 appends linter capture after caller tracing; output passed
as context when launching each parallel agent in Step 3
Matches CodeRabbit's approach of always producing a file-by-file overview before listing findings, giving reviewers an at-a-glance map of PR scope. - commands/review-pr.md: new Step 5 generates a Walkthrough table (file | change type | one-sentence summary) before posting findings; old steps 5-6 renumbered to 6-7 - commands/code-review.md: Phase 6 REPORT template gains a Walkthrough section between the decision header and the Summary paragraph
…tracing grep
`--include="*.{ts,tsx,...}"` uses shell brace expansion which grep's fnmatch
does not support — the pattern is matched literally and returns no results,
silently breaking caller tracing. Replaced with individual --include flags in
commands/code-review.md and commands/review-pr.md to match agents/code-reviewer.md.
…mental diff semantics - Replace `grep -oP` (PCRE, unavailable on macOS BSD grep) with `perl -ne` for linked-issue extraction in both code-review.md and review-pr.md; also switch from `xargs` to `while read` to avoid executing `gh issue view` with no arguments when no issues are linked - Fix incremental review diff: `git diff --name-only <commit>..HEAD` excludes uncommitted working-directory changes; drop `..HEAD` to compare <commit> directly against the working tree, consistent with default Local Review Mode
…review profiles, CI checks Phase 1 quality improvements derived from CodeRabbit architecture research: - Add verification-reviewer agent: second-pass gate that validates HIGH/CRITICAL findings before output, mirroring CodeRabbit's Verification Agent pattern - Fix review-pr.md Step 4b: CRITICAL findings from security-reviewer now always bypass contradiction filter regardless of agent agreement count - Add Step 3.5 verification pass to /review-pr pipeline; launches verification- reviewer after parallel agents complete - Add Review Effort score (1–5) to /review-pr walkthrough with rubric - Add NITPICK severity tier to code-reviewer agent (below LOW, style-only) - Add --profile=chill|assertive flag to /code-review (chill: CRITICAL+HIGH only; assertive: all 5 levels including NITPICK, default) - Add CI check reading (gh pr checks) to GitHub PR Mode Phase 2 as context; failing checks elevate related code paths to priority review - Upgrade HIGH/CRITICAL output format: require diff block + AI Implementation Prompt for every actionable finding - Update agent count to 25 across CLAUDE.md, README.md, docs/index.html
…ler grep -n, pipefail guards - Fix linked issues perl regex to capture all #N per matching line (handles "Fixes #1, #2"); use while(/.../gi) loop instead of single-capture print - Add read -r to while read loops to handle backslashes correctly - Change caller tracing grep -l (filenames only) to -n (file:line:match) in review-pr.md, code-review.md, and agents/code-reviewer.md — aligns with the "read 3–5 most relevant callers" instruction - Add || true to all static analysis commands (tsc, lint, clippy, vet, ruff) to prevent pipefail environments from aborting context collection - Clarify incremental mode: use git diff <commit> (not <commit>..HEAD) to include uncommitted working tree changes; remove ambiguous Phase 2 reference - CLAUDE.md: rename "Agent Frontmatter 必填欄位" to "建議欄位"; clarify name/description/color are required, tools/model are recommended
- Bump version v1.1.0 → v1.2.0 in nav and footer - Add verification-reviewer agent card (orange, 通用主審 section) - Add NITPICK severity row to severity table - Add --profile=chill|assertive to /code-review syntax and profile section - Add Verification Pass (Step 3.5) and Walkthrough/Effort Score sections to /review-pr
README.md: - Add verification-reviewer to 通用主審 agents table - Update architecture diagram to include verification-reviewer - Update feature table: parallel review now mentions verification pass CLAUDE.md: - Add design principles 6 (verification gate) and 7 (NITPICK tier)
…tion guide Add 常用操作速查 index table at top for faster session orientation, and 新增 本地驗證 section with commit checklist to prevent common omissions (missing README/index.html/CLAUDE.md count updates after adding agents). Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ion sync trigger - Move /reload-plugins out of bash block (it's a Claude Code slash command, not a shell command) to prevent new contributors from running it in terminal - Add count verification one-liner to detect stale agent/command/skill counts - Add git log check to surface when develop branch needs version sync
Phase 1 — Signal-to-Noise Filter + Evidence Gate: - commands/code-review.md: severity-based delivery (CRITICAL/HIGH as inline comments with suggestion blocks, MEDIUM as summary table, LOW/NITPICK as collapsible <details>); Phase 6.5 auto-updates PR description with review summary; Phase 1.5 CLASSIFY routes DOCS/CONFIG to Fast Path, LOGIC/SECURITY to Slow Path; Phase 8 saves last-reviewed commit for incremental tracking; Phase 2 Step 1 loads .claude/review-paths.yaml for path-based rules; Bitbucket Phase 7 updated to match three-step severity delivery - commands/review-pr.md: Step 5 posts walkthrough as dedicated first comment (before findings) with optional Mermaid sequence diagram; Step 6 rewritten to severity-based delivery with inline suggestion blocks; pr-walkthrough-writer added to parallel agent list - agents/verification-reviewer.md: Gates 1 and 3 now require mandatory Bash commands (grep/Read) before any verdict; CONFIRMED output includes Evidence and Caller check fields; Confidence Standard updated to require actual command output Phase 2 — New agent: - agents/pr-walkthrough-writer.md: new agent that generates file-change table and Mermaid sequence diagrams; used in /review-pr parallel step Update counts: 25 → 26 agents, 6 → 7 parallel agents in /review-pr
New agent performs sequential pre-computation before parallel reviewer agents launch: - L2: grep-based import dependency tracing (1 BFS hop) — identifies files NOT in the diff but that depend on changed code - L3: git log co-change risk analysis (last 50 commits) — surfaces files historically paired with changed files but absent from this PR - SHA-based cache in .claude/code-graph/ — reuses map across sessions when HEAD commit matches; cache miss triggers fresh computation Integration: - /review-pr Step 2.5: runs code-graph-analyzer sequentially, injects IMPACT_MAP into each parallel agent's prompt as context - /code-review Phase 2.5: same pattern for local diff and PR modes Also updates all documentation (README, CLAUDE.md, docs/index.html) to reflect 27 agents total.
…eatures Resolved add/add and content conflicts between v1.3.0 release commit and develop's new work (code-graph-analyzer, CodeRabbit-parity pipeline). Kept develop HEAD for all conflicted files — develop contains all v1.3.0 content plus the new additions.
Address claude-review HIGH finding and Copilot suppressed comments: - docs/index.html meta description: 26-agent → 27-agent - docs/index.html stat-num Parallel PR Agents: 6 → 7 - docs/index.html lead paragraph: 25 個 → 27 個 - docs/index.html feature list: 25 Reviewer → 27 Agent, 六並行 → 七並行 - docs/index.html parallel section description: 6 → 7 + add code graph context - README.md architecture tree: 25 個 reviewer agents → 27 個 agent (×2)
- commands/code-review.md: unify Phase 1.5 \$NUMBER/\${NUMBER} → <NUMBER> placeholder
- commands/code-review.md: clarify .claude/review-paths.yaml is optional user-created file
- agents/verification-reviewer.md: add || true to Gate 1 and Gate 3 grep to survive set -e/pipefail
- agents/code-graph-analyzer.md: exclude test files (*.test.*, *.spec.*, __tests__) from L2b dependents scan
- agents/code-graph-analyzer.md: add .git and test file exclusions to require() style scan
- CLAUDE.md: clarify docs: goes to CHANGELOG but doesn't trigger version bump (not completely ignored)
- commands/code-review.md Phase 6.5: replace --body "\$STRIPPED..." with printf pipe to --body-file - to prevent shell injection from PR body containing quotes or \$(command) subshells - agents/code-graph-analyzer.md L3: pass \$FILE via env var (FILE="\$FILE" python3) instead of interpolating into -c string, preventing injection from malicious filenames with shell metacharacters
- agents/code-graph-analyzer.md: move node_modules/.git/test exclusions from output filtering (| grep -v) to search stage (--exclude-dir/--exclude) for faster scan within the 60s time budget - agents/verification-reviewer.md: change Gate 3 grep from BRE \| to ERE (-ERn with |) for portability; add --exclude-dir for node_modules/.git - agents/pr-walkthrough-writer.md: wrap Step 5 example in 4-backtick fence so inner ```mermaid block doesn't break the outer code fence - commands/review-pr.md: add security-reviewer back to Step 3 parallel agents list (was missing, causing contradiction with Step 3.5/4b exception rules); update 七→八 agent count in CLAUDE.md/README/docs
- commands/code-review.md: add text/markdown language tags to bare code fences in Step 7a (MD040); add profile gate notes to Step 7b/7c so --profile=chill correctly suppresses MEDIUM/LOW/NITPICK sections - commands/review-pr.md: add text/markdown language tags to bare fences at Step 2.5 impact map block and Step 6a comment/suggestion blocks - docs/index.html: fix Parallel PR Agents stat 7→8; add security-reviewer and pr-walkthrough-writer rows to parallel agents table (was 6, now 8) - README.md: fix stale "6 個專項 agent" → "8 個專項 agent" in section 3
…iewer Step 3.5 and Step 4b exception rules were narrowed to security-reviewer only, violating CLAUDE.md Design Principle #6 ('CRITICAL 不可被移除，最多降為 HIGH' — no agent-source qualifier). Expand both rules back to 'any agent' and drop the redundant note on the security-reviewer list entry.
…add principles #6/#7 - Parallel agents table: remove misleading 'CRITICAL 不可被移除' from security-reviewer row (rule now applies to all agents, not just this one) - Design Principles: add #6 Verification gate (CRITICAL 最多降為 HIGH) and #7 NITPICK 分層 (--profile=chill skips MEDIUM/LOW/NITPICK) to align with CLAUDE.md which lists 7 principles
…position in CLAUDE.md - commands/review-pr.md: fix argument-hint from stale security|performance|types|tests to comments|tests|errors|types|code|simplify (matches usage text and agent mapping) - CLAUDE.md: add note to /review-pr 協作 section clarifying full 8-agent parallel list = code-reviewer + security-reviewer (通用主審) + 6 協作 agents
Replace stale security/performance focus values with the correct options: comments|tests|errors|types|code|simplify. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Update docs/index.html, CLAUDE.md, and README.md to accurately reflect the current behavior of verification-reviewer and /review-pr Step 3.5: - Step 3.5 now carries forward UNCERTAIN HIGH→MEDIUM findings in addition to CONFIRMED findings (previously stated "only confirmed survive") - New "FIXED IN THIS PR" verdict removes findings at any severity when the issue is resolved by another hunk in the same diff (no CRITICAL protection applies here — the PR itself is the fix) - verification-reviewer description updated to list all three outcomes: CONFIRMED kept, UNCERTAIN→MEDIUM kept, FIXED IN THIS PR removed
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…-review Collapse the 9 slash commands into one /code-review entry point that auto-detects the language/framework of changed files and dispatches the matching specialist reviewer agents — no per-language command needed. - Remove /review-pr and the 7 language commands (cpp/fastapi/flutter/go/ kotlin/python/rust); fold their multi-agent parallel + verification capability into /code-review. - Add Language/Framework Auto-Dispatch: by file extension (.py→python- reviewer, .go→go-reviewer, …), refined by content for frameworks (Django/FastAPI/Flutter). Detected-only, zero match = zero waste. - Both local and PR modes now run the same full pipeline (code-graph → 8 general agents + dispatched specialists → verification Phase 3.5 → aggregate). Local reports to terminal; PR publishes to GitHub/Bitbucket. - Keep --focus and --profile flags. - Sync CLAUDE.md, README.md, docs/index.html (badges/stats 9→1, architecture, sidebar, contributing guide). BREAKING CHANGE: /review-pr and all /<lang>-review commands are removed. Use /code-review for everything — language specialists are now dispatched automatically based on the changed files. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
plugin.json and marketplace.json described 24 reviewer agents (actual: 27) and parallel PR review commands; after the 9-to-1 refactor there is a single /code-review command that auto-dispatches language specialists. Sync all three description strings to match. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Audited the plugin against the plugin-dev skills (plugin-structure, agent-development) and applied the validated improvements: - Rewrite every agent description to the official triggering shape (Use this agent when... Typical triggers include... See When to invoke) and add a ## When to invoke body section with third-person scenario bullets. Improves auto-dispatch hit rate; passes validate-agent.sh with zero errors. - Fix verification-reviewer color orange -> yellow (orange is outside the official validator color set); sync the docs marker. - Open the six analyzer agent prompts in second person where missing. - Add homepage to plugin.json (parity with marketplace.json). - Document the triggering-format convention + validator command in CLAUDE.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…format
Per the plugin-dev skill-development spec, skill descriptions should use
third person ("This skill should be used when...") with specific trigger
phrases so Claude activates them reliably. All three skills used the
wrong person or had no triggers:
- security-review: "Use this skill when..." -> third person, fuller triggers
- security-scan: content blurb -> "This skill should be used when the user
asks to scan .claude config / audit hooks/MCP/agents..."
- flutter-dart-code-review: content blurb -> "This skill should be used
when reviewing Flutter/Dart code or .dart changes..."
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…le ref Resolves findings from the PR #8 reviews (claude, Copilot, CodeRabbit): - Move ## When to invoke to immediately after frontmatter (before ## Prompt Defense Baseline) in the 7 agents where it was placed lower: go, python, rust, typescript reviewers + silent-failure-hunter, type-design-analyzer, pr-walkthrough-writer. Matches the documented agents/**/*.md convention; pure section move, no content change. - CLAUDE.md color note: reword the contradictory parenthetical so it clearly states only blue/cyan/green/yellow/magenta/red are valid and orange/purple/gray are not. - code-graph-analyzer description: drop the stale /review-pr Step 2.5 reference, keep /code-review Phase 2.5. Re-validated: validate-agent.sh 0 errors across all 27; When-to-invoke now precedes Prompt Defense Baseline in every agent. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…-review) Addresses findings from /code-review #8 (recall-biased pass) on this PR: - Restore the proactive-dispatch imperatives the triggering-format rewrite had stripped from 15 agent descriptions (verified 15 deleted, 0 retained): "MUST BE USED for X projects" on the language/framework reviewers, and "Use PROACTIVELY ..." on code-reviewer, security-reviewer, database-reviewer, code-graph-analyzer, verification-reviewer. Kept inside the official "Use this agent when... Typical triggers include..." format so both signals coexist. validate-agent.sh still 0 errors; all 27 still start with the required phrase. - docs/index.html: verification-reviewer card #a06818 (the --amber token, an orange shade) -> #9a8200 (true yellow) so the landing page matches the yellow label used in frontmatter/README/CLAUDE.md. - CLAUDE.md: document that descriptions must keep the imperative alongside the triggering format; note the validator requires the plugin-dev plugin and how to locate the script if the cache path differs. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
回應 PR #8 code review（HIGH）：本 PR 在 CLAUDE.md 引入「語言/框架 agent 描述須含 MUST BE USED for X projects.」規則，但這 6 個 agent 改寫 description 後未加，與 cpp/go/python 等 11 個同類不一致，降低自動 dispatch 命中率。 於各 description 末（See "When to invoke" 之前）補上： - fastapi-reviewer: MUST BE USED for FastAPI projects. - flutter-reviewer: MUST BE USED for Flutter projects. - healthcare-reviewer: MUST BE USED for healthcare and EMR/EHR projects. - kotlin-reviewer: MUST BE USED for Kotlin and Android/KMP projects. - mle-reviewer: MUST BE USED for ML/MLOps projects. - network-config-reviewer: MUST BE USED for network configuration reviews. 官方 validate-agent.sh：6 檔全 PASS（exit 0）。
…" form Second self-review pass on PR #8 caught 3 LOW polish issues introduced by the previous imperative-restoration commit: - code-graph-analyzer: imperative "Use PROACTIVELY as the pre-computation step before parallel reviewers launch." tripled an already-stated concept. Shortened to "Use PROACTIVELY before launching parallel reviewers." - code-reviewer: imperative chained two clauses; "Use immediately after writing or modifying code;" duplicated the opener. Trimmed to just "MUST BE USED for all code changes." - java-reviewer: "MUST BE USED for all Java code changes." deviated from the "MUST BE USED for X projects." convention all other 9 language reviewers (and CLAUDE.md) use. Normalized to "MUST BE USED for Java projects." Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
All agent references in commands/code-review.md changed from short names (e.g. `code-reviewer`) to namespaced form (`code-review:code-reviewer`). Plugin agents register in Claude Code's subagent registry under the `<plugin-name>:<agent-name>` namespace. Without the prefix, registry lookup fails and Claude falls back to `general-purpose` instead of the intended specialist agent — losing its specialized system prompt, tools, and review logic. Covers: all add_agent() calls, Phase 3 pool, focus-filter table, Phase 2.5, Phase 3.5, and all prose references. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ewers Remove Write and Edit tools (review-only, not edit), change color from yellow to blue to match the standard language reviewer profile. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR standardizes agent naming and configuration across the code-review pipeline. The database-reviewer agent narrowed its tool access to read-only capabilities and updated its visual color. The code-review documentation applied the ChangesAgent naming and configuration alignment
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![claude[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1236702?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
變更摘要
- 將
commands/code-review.md中所有 agent 短名稱（如typescript-reviewer）統一升級為完整命名空間形式（code-review:typescript-reviewer），修正缺少前綴時 Claude 回退至general-purpose的問題。 - 將
agents/database-reviewer.md的 tools 從[Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob]修正為[Read, Grep, Glob, Bash]（移除不適合 reviewer 的寫入工具），並將 color 由yellow改為blue，與其他語言 reviewer 保持一致。
問題與建議
無 — 此 PR 通過 Phase 3 全部過濾。
所有 add_agent 呼叫、--focus 對照表、Phase 3.5 的 verification-reviewer、以及 Bitbucket 區段均已正確加上 code-review: 前綴；database-reviewer 的 frontmatter 修改符合 CLAUDE.md 規範（blue 為合法色彩，移除 Write/Edit 符合 reviewer 唯讀設計）。
結論
可合併（含 0 條建議）
5 tasks
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
commands/code-review.mdupdated to fully-qualifiedcode-review:<name>form — without the namespace prefix, Claude falls back togeneral-purposeinstead of the intended specialist agentdatabase-reviewertools ([Read, Grep, Glob, Bash]) and color (blue) with other language reviewers — it had extraWrite/Edittools andyellowcolorTest plan
/code-reviewon a TypeScript PR and verifycode-review:typescript-revieweris invoked (notgeneral-purpose)database-reviewerappears withbluecolor and read-only tools🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
Configuration