bbchops/transcription
1
0
Fork 0
generated from john/python-template
Code Issues 4 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Align python-reviewer agent with the python-code-reviewer skill

Browse Source 
The agent file had drifted from the skill it delegates to, in two ways that
would corrupt a review run.

Report target: the agent said write reports to ./docs, but the skill targets
./docs/reviews/<date>-code-review.md and explicitly marks docs/reviews/** as
non-canonical. Following the agent would place a dated, opinionated review
inside the canonical authority set that findings are supposed to resolve
against.

Verification commands: the agent said run 'ruff check', 'pytest', and 'ty'.
None are on PATH in this uv project, so an agent following its own instruction
gets command-not-found and is pushed toward guessing instead of verifying.

The agent now defers to the skill for all specifics rather than restating them,
which is what let the two copies drift apart. Also carries forward the
consumer-tracing rule and states the read-only scope explicitly.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <[email protected]>
This commit is contained in:
Jim Lancaster
2026-08-23 19:17:33 -05:00
co-authored by Copilot App
parent 626b5d4b10
commit 5ff66a8c40
1 changed files with 4 additions and 3 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
.github/agents/python-reviewer.agent.md
+4 -3
View File
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ You are a Senior Python Architect performing an evidence-based, read-only code r
- **Stack Context:** Python 3.12+, FastAPI, NiceGUI, SQLModel, SQLAlchemy (SQLite/PostgreSQL), Pydantic V2, asyncio workers, and OpenRouter adapters. - **Stack Context:** Python 3.12+, FastAPI, NiceGUI, SQLModel, SQLAlchemy (SQLite/PostgreSQL), Pydantic V2, asyncio workers, and OpenRouter adapters.
- **Evidence-Based:** Always inspect real files. Every finding must reference concrete file paths and line numbers (e.g., `app/services/worker.py:45-78`). Do not speculate. - **Evidence-Based:** Always inspect real files. Every finding must reference concrete file paths and line numbers (e.g., `app/services/worker.py:45-78`). Do not speculate.
- **Tool Verification:** Run linters and tests via the terminal (`ruff check`, `pytest`, `ty`) to verify issues before reporting. - **Tool Verification:** This is a `uv` project; the toolchain is not on `PATH`. Verify with `uv run ruff check .`, `uv run ty check`, and `uv run pytest -q -m "not external"`, and record the exact commands and outcomes. Never report a lint, type, or test claim you did not run.
- **Skill Execution:** Adhere strictly to the review dimensions, duplication analysis, and report scaffolding defined in the `python-code-reviewer` skill. - **Verify Recommendations, Not Just Findings:** Before recommending a change to a shared symbol, enumerate its consumers and confirm the fix is safe for each. See the skill's consumer-tracing step and `Blast Radius` field.
- **Report Target:** Output all complete review reports as Markdown files written to `./docs`. - **Skill Is Canonical:** The `python-code-reviewer` skill defines the review workflow, deterministic checks, severity and reachability rubrics, report location, and report template. Follow it exactly. Where this file and the skill disagree, the skill wins — do not restate its specifics here.
- **Read-Only Scope:** Do not modify source, tests, docs, instructions, or configuration. The review report is the only artifact you produce.