Skip to content

ci: sync pr-review workflow to smart review recipes#26

Merged
Jercik merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chore/smart-pr-review
Jul 2, 2026
Merged

ci: sync pr-review workflow to smart review recipes#26
Jercik merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chore/smart-pr-review

Conversation

@Jercik

@Jercik Jercik commented Jul 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Syncs the managed pr-review workflow to the smart review recipes; the previous recipe ids were removed from the recipe server, which failed this repo's review CI. Rendered from the fixed j4k-align template.

@Jercik Jercik merged commit fa924f9 into main Jul 2, 2026
4 of 8 checks passed
@Jercik Jercik deleted the chore/smart-pr-review branch July 2, 2026 14:44

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Approach Review: The approach looks good. Updating the obsolete workflow recipe references is the correct and most straightforward way to restore the CI review workflows.


Approach review by Approach Review 2 (gemini-3.1-pro-preview)

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Approach Review: Approach looks good.

This PR is a pure config-sync: it swaps the obsolete recipe IDs (which the recipe server removed, breaking CI) for the currently-served "smart" recipes. The recipe IDs are an external input defined by the recipe server, not something this repo owns, so the only sensible response to "the old IDs were removed" is "use the new ones." No standard library or in-repo utility applies to a workflow YAML that calls an external service, and the change is minimal and reversible. Per the PR description it's rendered from the fixed j4k-align template, so the specific recipe selection (including the duplicated smart recipe with distinct name fields) is upstream-driven and not a decision this repo should re-litigate.


Approach review by Approach Review 3 (OpenCode Wafer) (GLM-5.2)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant