docs(agents): cross-repo dispatch pattern + e2e-before-merge gate#837
Conversation
- Owletto agents work in standalone ~/Code/owletto clone, not packages/owletto submodule (avoids inherited origin → wrong remote). - Don't pass "REPO: /absolute/path" in dispatch prompts — agents cd out of their isolation worktree. - Add e2e red→fix→green hard gate before opening bug-fix PRs. Bail if you can't reproduce. Motivated by the 2026-05-17 triage: both #781 and #782 agents hit the origin misconfig, and all three PRs (#833, #835, owletto#160) shipped without a reproducer.
|
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 (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAGENTS.md received two documentation additions: guardrails for cross-repo dispatch when working on the owletto submodule (requiring standalone clone path and forbidding absolute REPO directives) and a new E2E before merge hard-gate procedure for bug-fix PRs (defining reproduce/fix/re-run validation, required PR-body content, and exception handling). ChangesAgent Workflow Procedures
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
|
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
AGENTS.md (1)
159-167: ⚡ Quick winConsider clarifying the "Pi approval" reference.
Line 165 mentions "Pi approval validates code shape" without defining what Pi is. If Pi is an internal tool, bot, or reviewer known to the team, this may be fine. However, for new contributors or agents unfamiliar with the term, a brief parenthetical explanation (e.g., "Pi approval (automated code-shape check)") would improve clarity.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@AGENTS.md` around lines 159 - 167, Clarify the ambiguous "Pi approval" reference in AGENTS.md by updating the sentence that reads "Pi approval validates code shape" to include a short parenthetical explaining what Pi is (e.g., "Pi approval (automated code-shape/formatting check or internal bot)"), so new contributors understand it; locate the phrase "Pi approval validates code shape" in the E2E before merge section and add the concise parenthetical immediately after "Pi approval".
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Nitpick comments:
In `@AGENTS.md`:
- Around line 159-167: Clarify the ambiguous "Pi approval" reference in
AGENTS.md by updating the sentence that reads "Pi approval validates code shape"
to include a short parenthetical explaining what Pi is (e.g., "Pi approval
(automated code-shape/formatting check or internal bot)"), so new contributors
understand it; locate the phrase "Pi approval validates code shape" in the E2E
before merge section and add the concise parenthetical immediately after "Pi
approval".
|
Addressed in the latest commit — parenthetical clarifies Pi is the project's automated PR-review CLI invoked as |
2 participants
Summary
Why now
Triage of 24h-old issues shipped three PRs (#833, #835, owletto#160) without any reproducer. Pi flagged one of them (#835) as "not reproducible from code alone" — merged anyway. Honest cost: two prod fixes need 24h of log-watching to confirm they hit the actual bug. This PR codifies the rule that would have caught that.
Test plan
🤖 No-op verification — docs only, no code path affected.
Summary by CodeRabbit