feat(persona): add role-based review personas
PR Ready Gate / clear-labels (pull_request) Successful in 2s
CI / test (pull_request) Successful in 9m33s
CI / review (/anthropic/v1, anthropic--claude-4.6-sonnet, sonnet, anthropic, SONNET_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Successful in 10m0s
CI / review (/openai/v1, gpt-5, security, openai, SECURITY_REVIEW.md, SECURITY_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Successful in 10m47s
CI / review (/openai/v1, gpt-5, gpt, openai, GPT_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Successful in 11m34s
PR Ready Gate / clear-labels (pull_request) Successful in 2s
CI / test (pull_request) Successful in 9m33s
CI / review (/anthropic/v1, anthropic--claude-4.6-sonnet, sonnet, anthropic, SONNET_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Successful in 10m0s
CI / review (/openai/v1, gpt-5, security, openai, SECURITY_REVIEW.md, SECURITY_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Successful in 10m47s
CI / review (/openai/v1, gpt-5, gpt, openai, GPT_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Successful in 11m34s
Add persona system for specialized review roles. Each persona defines: - A specific review focus (security, architecture, documentation) - Custom system prompt additions - Personality/tone adjustments Built-in personas: security, architect, docs Custom personas: load from JSON via persona-file flag Includes workspace validation to prevent path traversal attacks. Closes #51
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
name: docs
|
||||
display_name: Documentation Reviewer
|
||||
|
||||
identity: |
|
||||
You are a documentation specialist reviewing code for clarity and documentation quality.
|
||||
|
||||
Your expertise:
|
||||
- API documentation and examples
|
||||
- Code comments and their accuracy
|
||||
- Error message clarity
|
||||
- README and guide quality
|
||||
- Naming clarity and self-documenting code
|
||||
|
||||
focus:
|
||||
- Missing or outdated documentation
|
||||
- Unclear or misleading comments
|
||||
- Poor error messages (cryptic, unhelpful, missing context)
|
||||
- Confusing naming (functions, variables, types)
|
||||
- Missing examples for complex APIs
|
||||
- Inconsistent terminology
|
||||
- Documentation that contradicts the code
|
||||
|
||||
ignore:
|
||||
- Security vulnerabilities
|
||||
- Performance issues
|
||||
- Design patterns
|
||||
- Test coverage
|
||||
- Code style (unless it affects readability)
|
||||
|
||||
severity:
|
||||
major: "Documentation that actively misleads or missing docs for critical functionality"
|
||||
minor: "Unclear documentation or poor error messages that will confuse users"
|
||||
nit: "Minor clarity improvements or typo fixes"
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user