* post-run gate: fail the run when review mode finishes without a review or progress
review-mode runs that ended in a text-only assistant turn ("now I have enough
to draft the review...") were silently swallowed: the progress comment was
deleted by stranded-comment cleanup and no review appeared on the PR. user-
visible result was identical to "the agent never ran." caught in
https://github.com/pullfrog/app/actions/runs/25583698781.
new post-run gate alongside stopHook / dirtyTree / summaryStale: derived
inline from toolState (selectedMode in {Review, IncrementalReview} && !review
&& !finalSummaryWritten && hadProgressComment) — no parallel toolState flag.
when it fires, the resume prompt nudges the agent to call either
create_pull_request_review or report_progress; persistent failure after
MAX_POST_RUN_RETRIES surfaces as AgentResult.error.
also: when the post-run loop returns success=false, write the error to the
progress comment before the stranded-comment cleanup runs, and skip the
delete in that case. previously a !success run from the loop would lose the
error message into the void.
IncrementalReview's trivial-skip branch now calls report_progress with a
brief "no review warranted" note instead of exiting silently — keeps the
contract symmetric with the gate and gives the user a visible signal even
on no-op review runs.
documents the literal-record design rule on the ToolState interface so
future fields don't drift back into derived/absence-encoding state.
* review feedback: mode-aware nudge, gate-error preservation, prompt order
addresses three findings from the auto-review on this PR:
1. Review mode nudge no longer offers `report_progress` as an exit. Review
mode's contract (modes.ts step 5) forbids it; the gate previously sent
contradictory copy. IncrementalReview's nudge still offers both since
its trivial-skip path legitimately allows `report_progress`.
2. `writeJobSummary` is now wrapped in try/catch on the success-path
cleanup. without this, a throw there jumped to the outer catch and
overwrote the gate's failure message in the progress comment with the
(less actionable) writeJobSummary error — restoring exactly the
invisible-failure UX this PR fixes. step-summary writes are
informational; let them fail silently.
3. `buildPostRunPrompt` reorders gates to match the terminal hard-fail
order: `stopHook` → `unsubmittedReview` → `dirtyTree` → `summaryStale`.
when both hard-fail gates co-fire (rare in review modes), the prompt's
emphasis now matches the user-visible failure message.
new test asserts the IncrementalReview nudge offers both exits while the
Review nudge offers only `create_pull_request_review`. e2e validation
already passed against pullfrog/preview-638-review-stop-hook PR #1
(gate fired once; agent recovered on second turn).
* mode-aware terminal error copy
second auto-review caught a residual contradiction: the terminal hard-fail
error string reported "create_pull_request_review or report_progress" for
both modes, even though the new mode-aware nudge tells Review-mode agents
"Review mode does not have a no-submit exit". the error message now mirrors
the nudge — Review names only `create_pull_request_review`,
IncrementalReview lists both. additional Review-mode hard-fail test asserts
the absence of `report_progress` in the error.
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:Releaseon:push:tags:['v*']permissions:contents:writejobs:release:runs-on:ubuntu-lateststeps:- name:Checkoutuses:actions/checkout@v4with:fetch-depth:0- name:Generate release notesid:notesuses:pullfrog/pullfrog@v0with: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 releaserun:| 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:${{ steps.notes.outputs.result }}
Example: Structured Output with Zod Schema
You can force the agent to return structured JSON output by providing a JSON schema. This allows you to reliably parse and use the agent's response in subsequent workflow steps.
You can define your JSON schema directly or uou can use any validation library that converts to JSON Schema. Here's an example using Zod:
name:Release Checkon:pull_request:types:[closed]jobs:check-release:if:github.event.pull_request.merged == trueruns-on:ubuntu-lateststeps:- uses:actions/checkout@v4- name:Install dependenciesrun:npm install --no-save --no-package-lock zod @actions/core- name:Generate Schemaid:schemarun:| node -e '
import { z } from "zod";
import { setOutput } from "@actions/core";
const schema = z.object({
version: z.string().describe("Semantic version number (e.g. 1.0.0)"),
isBreaking: z.boolean().describe("Whether this release contains breaking changes"),
changelog: z.array(z.string()).describe("List of changes in this release"),
});
setOutput("schema", JSON.stringify(z.toJSONSchema(schema)));
'- name:Analyze PRid:analysisuses:pullfrog/pullfrog@v0with:prompt:| Analyze this PR and determine semantic versioning impact.
Return a JSON object matching the provided schema.output_schema:${{ steps.schema.outputs.schema }}env:ANTHROPIC_API_KEY:${{ secrets.ANTHROPIC_API_KEY }}- name:Process Resultrun:| # Parse the JSON result using fromJSON()
echo "Version: ${{ fromJSON(steps.analysis.outputs.result).version }}"
echo "Breaking: ${{ fromJSON(steps.analysis.outputs.result).isBreaking }}"