dotCMS / dotCMS/ai-workflows

Reviewers: inline line-anchored comments + finding dedup / carry-forward (gersmann pattern)

Open
#43 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Dominant language
No language data
Stars
1
Forks
0
Avg merge
4h 4m
Merged PRs (30d)
1

Description

Problem

All executors (codex, bedrock-generic, claude) post a single sticky blob comment. Two consequences:

  1. No line anchoring — findings reference file:line in prose but aren't attached to the diff, so reviewers can't see them in context.
  2. No dedup / repeat-suppression — the model can emit the same finding twice in one run (observed on IaC #7889: the identical line-50 finding posted twice), and across re-runs there's no memory of what was already raised or resolved.

Reference implementation

gersmann/codex-review-action (OpenAI Responses API, same family we run on mantle) does this well:

  • inline comments anchored to exact diff lines; skip a finding if its target line isn't in the diff
  • structured JSON output (findings, carried_forward, overall_*) instead of freeform markdown
  • prior unresolved findings are fed back to the model so it carries forward still-relevant ones and avoids reposting
  • PR-level summary refreshed each run (old summary deleted); summary-only when there are no findings
  • severity tags 🔴 [P0] / [P1], 🟡 [P2], ⚪ [P3]; "prefer returning none"

Ask

Move the reviewers from "one sticky blob" toward: structured findings → inline anchored review comments + a refreshed summary, with dedup/carry-forward across runs. Likely a shared helper so all executor paths benefit. This is a real change + new release.

Refs: IaC #7889, #${ISSUE1##*/} (tight default prompt — complementary).

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start by tracing the codex, bedrock-generic, and claude executor paths, then compare their review flow with the linked gersmann/codex-review-action reference. Done means shared structured findings produce diff-anchored comments, suppress duplicates, carry unresolved findings across runs, and refresh a PR-level summary for all executor paths.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
github-actions
Domain
ai, ci-cd
Issue type
Feature
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Quiet
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
35/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.