[skills] Strengthen Java name conversion reviews - #12200
Merged
jonathanpeppers merged 2 commits intoJul 21, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Distinguish JNI, Java binary, Java source, and managed nested type names during review. Load interop guidance for trimmable typemap changes and require nested-name assertions at serialized output boundaries. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 1a389fd8-0521-4de1-b2d4-ba67eff72ff8
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Updates the android-reviewer skill guidance to better catch regressions around Java/JNI name conversions—especially nested types—by clarifying which name representation is required at each consumer boundary and by strengthening test expectations.
Changes:
- Broadened when
interop-rules.mdshould be loaded (now includes TrimmableTypeMap/name-conversion scenarios). - Added explicit guidance distinguishing JNI internal, Java binary, Java source, and managed nested type names.
- Added testing guidance requiring
$nested-type assertions at the final serialized output boundary (manifest/map/rules/generated source).
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| .github/skills/android-reviewer/SKILL.md | Updates conditional rule-loading guidance to include Java/JNI name-conversion scenarios. |
| .github/skills/android-reviewer/references/testing-rules.md | Adds a rule requiring nested-name ($) assertions at consumer boundaries. |
| .github/skills/android-reviewer/references/interop-rules.md | Adds a Java type-name representation section to reduce review blind spots for nested types. |
Describe rule selection as based on changed files and diff content, and update the interop reference introduction for Java/JNI name handling. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 1a389fd8-0521-4de1-b2d4-ba67eff72ff8
jonathanpeppers
added
the
ready-to-review
dalexsoto
approved these changes
Jul 21, 2026
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.
Description
PR #12187 exposed a reviewer blind spot: replacing an inline JNI-name conversion with a source-name helper silently changed nested Java binary names. The reviewer guidance did not clearly distinguish the representations or require tests at the consuming boundary.
Teach
android-reviewerto load interop guidance for trimmable typemap changes, distinguish JNI internal, Java binary, Java source, and managed nested names, and require nested-name assertions on final manifest, map, rule, or generated-source output.Evaluation
A blinded replay of the original regression commit using the same model and review prompt detected the bug in 9/10 trials with this concise guidance, compared with 7/10 using the original skill. Blocking findings improved from 7/10 to 8/10. The sample is directional rather than statistically conclusive.
Pull Request
title and
description
should follow the
commit-messages.mdworkflow documentation, and in particular should include: