fix(review): remove qwen-code-specific core-infra gate from bundled /review - #6412
Merged
Conversation
…review
The bundled /review skill is a general command that runs against arbitrary
repositories (and cross-repo PRs), but a previous change baked qwen-code's own
"core infrastructure is maintainer-only" governance into the shipped prompt:
hardcoded packages/core and packages/*/src/{auth,providers,models,config,tools,services}
paths, a 500+ line hard block, and an authorAssociation-based maintainer check.
Those path names are generic — src/auth, src/config, src/tools, src/services are
common across monorepos — so an external contributor's large PR to an unrelated
repo would be hard-blocked as "must be maintainer-initiated" under a policy that
repo never adopted.
Remove the gate and its escalate-flag plumbing (Steps 1, 6, and 7) from the
bundled skill, along with the matching DESIGN.md rationale and the user-doc
section. qwen-code's maintainer-only policy stays documented in AGENTS.md for
this repo. The Issue Fidelity / root-cause ownership agent (Agent 0) is a
universal review principle and is left unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
DragonnZhang
enabled auto-merge
July 7, 2026 02:32
Contributor
Code Coverage Summary
CLI Package - Full Text ReportCore Package - Full Text ReportFor detailed HTML reports, please see the 'coverage-reports-22.x-ubuntu-latest' artifact from the main CI run. |
Collaborator
|
Thanks for the PR! Template looks good ✓ Problem: This is a real design issue, not theoretical hardening. The Direction: Clearly aligned. Per-repo governance belongs in per-repo config ( Size: Not applicable — this is a prompt/docs-only change (37 deletions, 2 additions across 3 files: Approach: Scope feels exactly right. Pure deletion — no new abstractions, no replacement logic, no scope creep. The Moving on to code review. 🔍 中文说明感谢贡献！ 模板完整 ✓ 问题：这是一个真实的设计问题，而非理论性加固。 方向：明确对齐。按仓库定制的治理应当放在按仓库定制的配置里（ 规模：不适用——这是纯提示词/文档改动（3 个文件共 37 行删除、2 行新增： 方案：范围恰到好处。纯删除——没有新抽象、没有替代逻辑、没有范围蔓延。 进入代码审查 🔍 — Qwen Code · qwen3.7-max |
Collaborator
|
Code review: Clean deletion, no issues found. The diff removes exactly what the PR describes — the "Core infrastructure scope gate" section from Step 1, the numbered rule #6, the Reuse check: Not applicable — the existing Step 2 Testing: Before (installed build, main branch)After (PR branch, static verification)All gate references removed. Agent 0 / Issue Fidelity references confirmed intact (10 matches for Note: 中文说明代码审查： 干净的删除，未发现问题。diff 精确移除了 PR 所描述的内容——Step 1 中的"Core infrastructure scope gate"小节、编号规则 #6、Step 6（判定）和 Step 7（评审提交）中的 复用检查： 不适用——Step 2 的 测试： Before（已安装版本，main 分支）： After（PR 分支，静态验证）： 注：当前 CI 环境缺少 — Qwen Code · qwen3.7-max |
Collaborator
|
This is a clean, well-scoped fix for a real bug. The core-infrastructure gate that #6395 added to the bundled My independent proposal before reading the diff was identical to what the PR does — there's nothing to add and nothing to cut. The existing Step 2 Static verification confirms the gate is gone (0 matches for all gate-related terms on the PR branch) and the kept behavior is intact (10 matches for Agent 0 / Issue Fidelity references). The dev build wasn't available for a live run, but for a prompt-only deletion this is conclusive. LGTM, approving. ✅ 中文说明这是一个干净、范围恰当的 bug 修复。#6395 在内置 我在阅读 diff 之前的独立方案与 PR 完全一致——没有需要添加的，也没有需要删减的。Step 2 的 静态验证确认门禁已消失（PR 分支上所有门禁相关词匹配数为 0），保留行为完好（Agent 0 / Issue Fidelity 引用 10 处匹配）。开发构建不可用于实时运行，但对于纯提示词删除这是结论性的。 LGTM，批准。✅ — Qwen Code · qwen3.7-max |
qwen-code-ci-bot
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2026
qwen-code-ci-bot
left a comment
qwen-code-ci-bot
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, looks ready to ship. ✅
qwen-code-ci-bot
left a comment
qwen-code-ci-bot
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Clean removal — no issues found in the diff. The gate text, escalate flag plumbing, DESIGN.md rationale, and user-facing docs are all removed consistently with no dangling references, numbering gaps, or orphaned cross-references.
Downgraded from Approve to Comment: CI still running.
— qwen3.7-max via Qwen Code /review
yiliang114
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2026
yiliang114
left a comment
yiliang114
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review: Approve
This is the right call. /review is a bundled, general-purpose command — shipping qwen-code's repository-specific governance policy inside it leaks maintainer-only rules to every user's monorepo. The path patterns (packages/*/src/{auth,config,tools,services}/**) are common enough to cause false hard-blocks on unrelated projects.
The correct home for per-repo policy is AGENTS.md / .qwen/review-rules.md, which Step 2 load-rules already loads from the base branch. Nothing about qwen-code's own core-infra policy is lost.
Removal is thorough: all escalate flag plumbing (Step 1 gate, Step 6 verdict branch, Step 7 event-mapping condition) is cleanly removed. downgradeApprove/downgradeRequestChanges from presubmit JSON are unaffected. Agent 0 (Issue Fidelity / root-cause ownership) is fully preserved.
Two minor observations (non-blocking):
- The test plan describes a scenario but doesn't link a concrete reproducible PR or fixture. A real URL would be more convincing for prompt-only changes.
- After removing rule 6 from the top-level numbered list, rule 5 is now the last numbered instruction — fine, but worth noting if future rules get added.
wenshao
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2026
wenshao
left a comment
wenshao
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No issues found. LGTM.
— GPT-5 via Qwen Code /review
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
4 participants
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.
What this PR does
Removes the qwen-code-specific core infrastructure gate from the bundled
/reviewskill. That gate — added in #6395 — hardcoded this repository's own paths (packages/core/src/**andpackages/*/src/{auth,providers,models,config,tools,services}/**), a 500+ line hard block, and anauthorAssociation-based maintainer check that force-escalated external PRs to "must be maintainer-initiated". This PR strips the gate out of the shipped prompt, along with theescalateflag plumbing that carried its decision into the verdict (Step 6) and review-submission (Step 7) logic, plus the matchingDESIGN.mdrationale and the user-facing docs section. The Issue Fidelity / root-cause ownership agent (Agent 0) from the same PR is left completely intact.Why it's needed
/reviewis a general, bundled command — it runs against whatever repository the user points it at, including cross-repo PRs. Baking one repository's governance policy into it is wrong on principle, and in this case it isn't even a harmless no-op: the gate keyed off generic monorepo path names.src/auth,src/config,src/tools, andsrc/servicesunderpackages/*exist in countless projects, so an external contributor's 500+ line PR to some unrelated monorepo would be hard-blocked with "this PR must be maintainer-initiated" — enforcing QwenLM's maintainer-only rule on a project that never adopted it, and refusing to review the change at all.The correct home for per-repository policy is a project's own review rules.
/reviewalready loads and injects the## Code Reviewsection ofAGENTS.md/.qwen/review-rules.mdin Step 2, and only for the repo being reviewed. qwen-code's "core infrastructure is maintainer-only" rule remains documented in this repo'sAGENTS.md, so nothing about the policy itself is lost — it just stops leaking into every other user's tool.Reviewer Test Plan
How to verify
This is a prompt/docs-only change to the bundled skill (
SKILL.md) — no runtime TypeScript — so verification is behavioral./reviewon an external PR that changes 500+ lines under a genericpackages/*/src/config/**(orsrc/auth,src/tools,src/services) path in a non-qwen-code repo. Before: hard-blocked in Step 1 as "must be maintainer-initiated", never reviewed. After: proceeds straight into the normal multi-agent review./reviewon an ordinary PR still runs Agent 0 (Issue Fidelity) and the other agents; the verdict logic still honorsdowngradeApprove/downgradeRequestChangesfrom the presubmit JSON — only theescalatebranch is gone.core infrastructure scope gate,authorAssociation,500+ line,escalateflag), while the root-cause ownership gate (Agent 0) is still present.Evidence (Before & After)
N/A — no user-visible / TUI change; this removes review-agent behavior and documentation only.
Tested on
Environment (optional)
N/A — no build or unit tests; the change is to the bundled skill prompt and docs.
Risk & Scope
AGENTS.mdfor human reviewers, and can be re-added as a project review rule (Step 2 injection) if an automated form is wanted for this repo specifically.qwen reviewsubcommand changes; Agent 0 (Issue Fidelity & Root-Cause Ownership) is unchanged.Linked Issues
Follow-up to #6395 (which introduced the gate). No closing keyword.
中文说明
这个 PR 做了什么
从内置的
/reviewskill 中移除 qwen-code 专属的核心基础设施门禁（core infrastructure gate）。该门禁在 #6395 引入,硬编码了本仓库自己的路径(packages/core/src/**以及packages/*/src/{auth,providers,models,config,tools,services}/**)、一个 500+ 行硬拦截、以及基于authorAssociation的维护者判定——会把外部 PR 强制升级为"必须由维护者发起"。本 PR 把该门禁从发布的提示词中删除,同时移除把门禁结论传递到判定(Step 6)与评审提交(Step 7)逻辑里的escalate标志管线,以及对应的DESIGN.md设计说明和面向用户的文档小节。同 PR 引入的 Issue Fidelity / 根因归属 agent(Agent 0)完全保留。为什么需要它
/review是一个通用的内置命令——它会针对用户指向的任意仓库运行,包括跨仓库 PR。把某一个仓库的治理策略烤进这个命令,原则上就是错的;而且在本例中它甚至不是无害的空操作:门禁匹配的是通用的 monorepo 路径名。src/auth、src/config、src/tools、src/services在packages/*下是无数项目都有的目录,所以外部贡献者向某个无关 monorepo 提交的 500+ 行 PR 会被硬拦截并提示"必须由维护者发起"——把 QwenLM 的"仅维护者可改"规则强加到一个从未采纳该规则的项目上,并且干脆拒绝评审该改动。按仓库定制的策略应当放在各仓库自己的 review 规则里。
/review已经会在 Step 2 加载并注入AGENTS.md/.qwen/review-rules.md的## Code Review小节,且仅对被评审的那个仓库生效。qwen-code 的"核心基础设施仅维护者可改"规则仍然记录在本仓库的AGENTS.md中,所以策略本身没有丢失——只是不再泄漏到其他所有用户的工具里。评审者测试计划
如何验证
这是对内置 skill(
SKILL.md)的提示词/文档改动,没有运行时 TypeScript,因此验证是行为性的。packages/*/src/config/**(或src/auth、src/tools、src/services)下改动 500+ 行的外部 PR 运行/review。之前: 在 Step 1 被硬拦截为"必须由维护者发起",根本不评审。之后: 直接进入正常的多 agent 评审。/review仍会跑 Agent 0(Issue Fidelity)和其他 agent;判定逻辑仍然遵循 presubmit JSON 里的downgradeApprove/downgradeRequestChanges——只是去掉了escalate分支。core infrastructure scope gate、authorAssociation、500+ line、escalate标志),而根因归属门禁(Agent 0)仍在。证据(前后对比)
N/A——没有用户可见 / TUI 变化;本改动只移除评审 agent 行为与文档。
测试平台
环境(可选)
N/A——无构建或单元测试;改动仅涉及内置 skill 提示词与文档。
风险与范围
AGENTS.md供人工评审者参考,若本仓库确实需要自动化形式,可作为项目 review 规则(Step 2 注入)重新加入。qwen review子命令;Agent 0(Issue Fidelity & Root-Cause Ownership)保持不变。关联 Issue
对 #6395(引入该门禁)的后续修复,不使用关闭关键字。