Colin McDonnell 3514bbc39f review prompt: tighten body-section bar + inline technical-details (#770)
* review prompt: tighten body-section bar + add inline technical-details

Two layers of tightening to the Review/IncrementalReview prompts in
PR_SUMMARY_FORMAT (and the per-mode aggregate-&-draft step):

1. Reframe inline-vs-body split. Body `### ` sections are now reserved
   for concerns that genuinely have no line to anchor to — absence,
   sequencing, design decisions, scope questions, architectural risk.
   Drop the "cross-cutting concerns" framing (misled the agent into
   either filing nothing in the body or filing multi-file anchored
   findings there).

2. Add a "Hunt for non-anchored concerns" sub-step to both Review (step
   6) and IncrementalReview (step 8) aggregate phases. Diagnosis from
   PR #767's auto-review: on substantial PRs the agent surfaced
   findings but routed all of them inline, producing reviews with zero
   `### ` body sections even on diffs where non-anchored concerns
   clearly existed.

3. Replace the abstract `### ` example with a concrete non-anchored
   one ("Legacy `opencode.ts` has no documented deletion plan") so the
   agent pattern-matches the absence-shaped finding, not a line-bug.

4. Add an "Inline technical details" subsection to PR_SUMMARY_FORMAT
   so inline comments can carry a `<details>Technical details</details>`
   block when the fix has cross-file implications. Rename the existing
   "Agent details" inline collapsible to "Technical details" for
   consistency with body sections.

5. (Carried over from prior uncommitted work) Restructure the review
   metadata block from `<details>Review metadata</details>` into an
   HTML comment + an italic TL;DR commit-range line. The HTML comment
   keeps the metadata addressable for downstream agents without
   eating user-visible review real estate.

No tests touched.

* wiki: document multi-model end-to-end eval pattern
2026-05-19 21:06:30 +00:00
2026-01-16 08:00:16 +00:00
2026-03-12 05:22:51 +00:00
2025-08-27 16:53:48 -07:00
2026-01-19 08:41:56 +00:00
2026-03-12 05:22:51 +00:00

Green Pullfrog logo
Pullfrog

Bring your favorite coding agent into GitHub


🚀 Pullfrog is in beta! We're onboarding users in waves. Get on the waitlist →


What is Pullfrog?

Pullfrog is a GitHub bot that brings the full power of your favorite coding agents into GitHub. It's open source and powered by GitHub Actions.

  • Tag @pullfrog — Tag @pullfrog in a comment anywhere in your repo. It will pull in any relevant context using the action's internal MCP server and perform the appropriate task.
  • Prompt from the web — Trigger arbitrary tasks from the Pullfrog dashboard
  • Automated triggers — Configure Pullfrog to trigger agent runs in response to specific events. Each of these triggers can be associated with custom prompt instructions.
    • issue created
    • issue labeled
    • PR created
    • PR review created
    • PR review requested
    • and more...

Pullfrog is the bridge between your preferred coding agents and GitHub. Use it for:

  • 🤖 Coding tasks — Tell @pullfrog to implement something and it'll spin up a PR. If CI fails, it'll read the logs and attempt a fix automatically. It'll automatically address any PR reviews too.
  • 🔍 PR review — Coding agents are great at reviewing PRs. Using the "PR created" trigger, you can configure Pullfrog to auto-review new PRs.
  • 🤙 Issue management — Via the "issue created" trigger, Pullfrog can automatically respond to common questions, create implementation plans, and link to related issues/PRs. Or (if you're feeling lucky) you can prompt it to immediately attempt a PR addressing new issues.
  • Literally whatever — Want to have the agent automatically add docs to all new PRs? Cut a new release with agent-written notes on every commit to main? Pullfrog lets you do it.

Standalone Usage

You can also use pullfrog/pullfrog as a step in your own workflows. The action exposes a result output that can be consumed by subsequent steps.

Example: Auto-generate release notes on new tags

name: Release
on:
  push:
    tags: ['v*']

permissions:
  contents: write

jobs:
  release:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - name: Checkout
        uses: actions/checkout@v4
        with:
          fetch-depth: 0

      - name: Generate release notes
        id: notes
        uses: pullfrog/pullfrog@v0
        with:
          prompt: |
            Generate release notes for ${{ github.ref_name }}.
            Compare commits between this tag and the previous tag.
            Format as markdown: summary paragraph, then ### Features, ### Fixes, ### Breaking Changes sections.
            Omit empty sections. Be concise.
        env:
          ANTHROPIC_API_KEY: ${{ secrets.ANTHROPIC_API_KEY }}

      # write to file to avoid shell escaping issues with special characters
      - name: Create GitHub release
        run: |
          notesfile="$RUNNER_TEMP/release-notes-$GITHUB_RUN_ID.md"
          printf '%s' "$NOTES" > "$notesfile"
          gh release create ${{ github.ref_name }} --title "${{ github.ref_name }}" --notes-file "$notesfile"
        env:
          GH_TOKEN: ${{ github.token }}
          NOTES: ${{ steps.notes.outputs.result }}

Example: Structured Output with Zod Schema

You can force the agent to return structured JSON output by providing a JSON schema. This allows you to reliably parse and use the agent's response in subsequent workflow steps.

You can define your JSON schema directly or uou can use any validation library that converts to JSON Schema. Here's an example using Zod:

name: Release Check
on:
  pull_request:
    types: [closed]

jobs:
  check-release:
    if: github.event.pull_request.merged == true
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4

      - name: Install dependencies
        run: npm install --no-save --no-package-lock zod @actions/core

      - name: Generate Schema
        id: schema
        run: |
          node -e '
            import { z } from "zod";
            import { setOutput } from "@actions/core";
            const schema = z.object({
              version: z.string().describe("Semantic version number (e.g. 1.0.0)"),
              isBreaking: z.boolean().describe("Whether this release contains breaking changes"),
              changelog: z.array(z.string()).describe("List of changes in this release"),
            });
            setOutput("schema", JSON.stringify(z.toJSONSchema(schema)));
          '

      - name: Analyze PR
        id: analysis
        uses: pullfrog/pullfrog@v0
        with:
          prompt: |
            Analyze this PR and determine semantic versioning impact.
            Return a JSON object matching the provided schema.
          output_schema: ${{ steps.schema.outputs.schema }}
        env:
          ANTHROPIC_API_KEY: ${{ secrets.ANTHROPIC_API_KEY }}

      - name: Process Result
        run: |
          # Parse the JSON result using fromJSON()
          echo "Version: ${{ fromJSON(steps.analysis.outputs.result).version }}"
          echo "Breaking: ${{ fromJSON(steps.analysis.outputs.result).isBreaking }}"
S
Description
Self-hosted Ollama-powered code review bot for Gitea Actions based on pullfrog
Readme MIT 27 MiB
Languages
TypeScript 97.9%
Shell 0.7%
Dockerfile 0.7%
JavaScript 0.7%