Skip to content

docs(github): note greptile runs automatically and require commit hashes in proof of fix - #32303

Merged
mateo-berri merged 1 commit into
litellm_internal_stagingfrom
litellm_pr_template_greptile_auto_proof_hashes
Jul 7, 2026
Merged

docs(github): note greptile runs automatically and require commit hashes in proof of fix#32303
mateo-berri merged 1 commit into
litellm_internal_stagingfrom
litellm_pr_template_greptile_auto_proof_hashes

Conversation

@mateo-berri

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Relevant issues

Linear ticket

Pre-Submission checklist

Please complete all items before asking a LiteLLM maintainer to review your PR

  • I have added meaningful tests (not applicable, template-only change)
  • My PR passes all CI/CD checks (e.g., lint, format, unit tests)
  • My PR's scope is as isolated as possible; it only solves 1 specific problem
  • I have received a Greptile Confidence Score of at least 4/5 before requesting a maintainer review (Greptile reviews automatically once the PR is opened; only comment @greptileai to re-request a review after pushing changes)

Screenshots / Proof of Fix

Template-only change; the rendered result is the proof: pull_request_template.md on this branch

Type

📖 Documentation

Changes

The pre-submission checklist told contributors to request a Greptile review by commenting @greptileai, which led agents and contributors to post that comment immediately on opening a PR even though Greptile already reviews every new PR automatically. The checklist item now keeps the 4/5 confidence score requirement and clarifies that commenting @greptileai is only for re-requesting a review after pushing changes

The Screenshots / Proof of Fix guidance now also requires including the commit hash each proof was captured at, for both the before and the after runs

@greptile-apps

greptile-apps Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Greptile Summary

This PR updates the GitHub PR template with two process clarifications: it corrects how contributors should request a Greptile review, and it strengthens the proof-of-fix requirements by mandating commit hashes.

  • The Greptile checklist item now explains that reviews run automatically on PR open; @greptileai is only needed to re-request after subsequent pushes, preventing the noisy pattern of contributors immediately posting that comment on every new PR.
  • The "Screenshots / Proof of Fix" section now requires a commit hash for both the before and after captures, making proofs auditable and tied to a specific point in history.

Confidence Score: 5/5

Template-only change with no impact on runtime code; safe to merge.

The change touches only the GitHub PR template and both edits are accurate: Greptile does run automatically on new PRs, and requiring commit hashes in proof screenshots is a straightforward process improvement with no downside.

No files require special attention.

Important Files Changed

Filename Overview
.github/pull_request_template.md Two small copy updates: clarifies that Greptile auto-reviews on PR open (so contributors don't need to ping @greptileai immediately), and adds a requirement to include commit hashes in proof-of-fix screenshots.

Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "docs(github): note greptile runs automat..." | Re-trigger Greptile

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

@mateo-berri
mateo-berri requested a review from yucheng-berri July 7, 2026 01:37
@mateo-berri
mateo-berri enabled auto-merge (squash) July 7, 2026 01:41
@mateo-berri
mateo-berri merged commit 4004881 into litellm_internal_staging Jul 7, 2026
121 of 122 checks passed
@mateo-berri
mateo-berri deleted the litellm_pr_template_greptile_auto_proof_hashes branch July 7, 2026 01:42
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.

2 participants