* mcp: embed example calls in top-level tool descriptions
agents (esp. claude sonnet) hallucinate param names from training-data
priors — `pr_number` instead of `pull_number`, `summary` instead of
`body`, full subcommand strings jammed into `git({command})` like it
were `shell({command})`. each error burns a tool round-trip plus a
follow-up ToolSearch, ~40+ events / 24h, no observable recovery cost
to us but visible to users in agent logs.
cheapest fix: add a sample formatted function call to every affected
tool's top-level description. example anchors are more reliable than
schema descriptions alone because the model treats descriptions as
narrative but call examples as canonical structure. for `git` and
`shell` (whose `command` fields collide), include explicit
counter-examples disambiguating which tool owns which shape.
no schema aliases / coercion yet — try the cheap thing first; if the
next audit window still shows the same hallucination rate, layer
aliases on top per #585's recommendation.
closes#585, closes#701
* mcp: drop negative anchors from tool descriptions
negation is a footgun in tool descriptions — telling the model "NOT
pr_number" makes pr_number more salient, not less. let the positive
example carry the schema and trust the model to read it.
removes:
- "the parameter is pull_number (a number), NOT pr_number" and
similar across checkout_pr, get_pull_request, list_pull_request_reviews,
get_review_comments, create_pull_request_review
- "NOT summary, message, or content" on report_progress
- "WRONG: git({ command: 'log --oneline' })" counter-example on git
- redundant param-type restatements after the example (e.g. "depth is a
number, not a string" on git_fetch, "description is required" on shell)
keeps a single positive example per tool. for tools with multiple call
shapes (git, git_fetch, push_branch), two positive examples instead of
one + a counter-example.
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 }}"