feat(persona): add role-based review personas (#51)
CI / test (pull_request) Successful in 15s
CI / review (/openai/v1, gpt-4.1, gpt41, openai, GPT_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Failing after 17s
CI / review (/anthropic/v1, claude-sonnet-4-6, sonnet, anthropic, SONNET_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Failing after 17s
CI / review (/openai/v1, gpt-4.1-mini, gpt41-mini, openai, GPT_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Failing after 16s
CI / review (/openai/v1, gpt-5-mini, gpt5-mini, openai, GPT_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Failing after 14s
CI / review (/openai/v1, gpt-5, security, openai, SECURITY_REVIEW.md, SECURITY_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Successful in 1m28s
CI / review (/openai/v1, gpt-5, gpt, openai, GPT_REVIEW_TOKEN) (pull_request) Successful in 1m41s

Implement role-based review personas that provide specialized review focus:
- Security: vulnerabilities, auth, secrets, injection attacks
- Architect: design patterns, code organization, API contracts
- Docs: documentation quality, API clarity, error messages

Changes:
- Add persona loading from JSON files and embedded built-ins
- Add --persona and --persona-file CLI flags (mutually exclusive)
- Add BuildPersonaSystemPrompt for persona-specific prompts
- Add FormatMarkdownWithDisplay for persona display names
- Update action.yml with persona and persona-file inputs
- Add comprehensive tests for all new functionality
- Document personas in README with examples

The persona system replaces the generic 'You are an expert code reviewer'
prompt with domain-specific identity, focus areas, ignore list, and
severity calibration. This reduces redundancy between multiple reviewers
and catches domain-specific issues that generic reviewers miss.

Closes #51
This commit is contained in:
Rodin
2026-05-10 02:49:21 -07:00
parent 2089ca0f2d
commit d7d5151a1f
13 changed files with 1261 additions and 2 deletions
+55
View File
@@ -159,3 +159,58 @@ func TestFormatMarkdown_RoleTitle(t *testing.T) {
t.Error("should not contain role title header when reviewer name is empty")
}
}
func TestFormatMarkdownWithDisplay(t *testing.T) {
result := &ReviewResult{
Verdict: "APPROVE",
Summary: "Test summary",
Findings: nil,
Recommendation: "Test recommendation",
}
t.Run("with display name", func(t *testing.T) {
body := FormatMarkdownWithDisplay(result, "Security Specialist", "security")
// Header should use display name
if !strings.Contains(body, "# Security Specialist Review") {
t.Error("header should use display name")
}
// Sentinel should use sentinel name
if !strings.Contains(body, "<!-- review-bot:security -->") {
t.Error("sentinel should use sentinel name")
}
// Footer "Review by" should use display name
if !strings.Contains(body, "*Review by Security Specialist*") {
t.Error("footer should use display name")
}
})
t.Run("without display name", func(t *testing.T) {
body := FormatMarkdownWithDisplay(result, "", "reviewer")
// Should fall back to sentinel name for header
if !strings.Contains(body, "# Reviewer Review") {
t.Error("header should fall back to sentinel name")
}
if !strings.Contains(body, "<!-- review-bot:reviewer -->") {
t.Error("sentinel should use sentinel name")
}
})
t.Run("empty both names", func(t *testing.T) {
body := FormatMarkdownWithDisplay(result, "", "")
// Should not have header
if strings.Contains(body, "# ") && strings.Contains(body, " Review") {
t.Error("should not have header when both names empty")
}
// Should not have sentinel
if strings.Contains(body, "<!-- review-bot:") {
t.Error("should not have sentinel when sentinel name empty")
}
})
}