The read:user scope is needed for the bot to self-request as a reviewer on PRs. Without it, the bot still functions but cannot add itself to the reviewer list.
The `read:user` scope is needed for the bot to self-request as a reviewer on PRs. Without it, the bot still functions but cannot add itself to the reviewer list.
Closes #66
rodin
self-assigned this 2026-05-11 06:40:31 +00:00
The read:user scope is needed for the bot to self-request as a
reviewer on PRs. Without it, the bot still functions but cannot
add itself to the reviewer list.
Closes#66
security-review-bot
requested review from security-review-bot 2026-05-11 06:41:54 +00:00
The change updates documentation to include the optional read:user scope and clarifies its purpose. There are no code changes and CI passed.
Recommendation
APPROVE — This PR only adjusts README guidance around token scopes, adding read:user as optional for self-requesting as a reviewer. No security-impacting code changes are present and CI has passed. Approve as-is.
# Security Review
## Summary
The change updates documentation to include the optional `read:user` scope and clarifies its purpose. There are no code changes and CI passed.
## Recommendation
**APPROVE** — This PR only adjusts README guidance around token scopes, adding `read:user` as optional for self-requesting as a reviewer. No security-impacting code changes are present and CI has passed. Approve as-is.
---
*Review by security*
<!-- review-bot:security -->
---
*Evaluated against 4a1cb6b4*
This is a pure documentation change adding the read:user scope to the README's token scopes table, along with a clarifying note about its optional nature. CI passed, the change is accurate and well-worded.
Findings
#
Severity
File
Line
Finding
1
[NIT]
README.md
332
The header separator row changed from `
Recommendation
APPROVE — Approve. The change correctly documents the read:user scope as optional but recommended, replaces a previously inaccurate statement ('No read:user scope needed'), and CI passed. The only finding is a one-character difference in a Markdown table separator that has no functional impact.
# Sonnet Review
## Summary
This is a pure documentation change adding the `read:user` scope to the README's token scopes table, along with a clarifying note about its optional nature. CI passed, the change is accurate and well-worded.
## Findings
| # | Severity | File | Line | Finding |
|---|----------|------|------|--------|
| 1 | [NIT] | `README.md` | 332 | The header separator row changed from `|-------|---------|` to `|-------|--------|` (one fewer dash in the second column). Both are valid Markdown table syntax, but the inconsistency with the surrounding table style is trivially cosmetic. |
## Recommendation
**APPROVE** — Approve. The change correctly documents the `read:user` scope as optional but recommended, replaces a previously inaccurate statement ('No `read:user` scope needed'), and CI passed. The only finding is a one-character difference in a Markdown table separator that has no functional impact.
---
*Review by sonnet*
<!-- review-bot:sonnet -->
---
*Evaluated against 4a1cb6b4*
[NIT] The header separator row changed from |-------|---------| to |-------|--------| (one fewer dash in the second column). Both are valid Markdown table syntax, but the inconsistency with the surrounding table style is trivially cosmetic.
**[NIT]** The header separator row changed from `|-------|---------|` to `|-------|--------|` (one fewer dash in the second column). Both are valid Markdown table syntax, but the inconsistency with the surrounding table style is trivially cosmetic.
gpt-review-bot
approved these changes 2026-05-11 06:42:25 +00:00
Documentation update correctly adds the read:user scope and clarifies its optional nature. CI has passed and the change is limited to README content.
Findings
#
Severity
File
Line
Finding
1
[NIT]
README.md
329
Section title says 'Token Scopes Required' but the table includes an optional scope (read:user). Consider renaming to 'Token Scopes' or splitting into 'Required' and 'Optional' for clarity.
Recommendation
APPROVE — The change is a straightforward documentation improvement that adds the read:user scope and clarifies behavior without it. Since CI passed and there are no code changes, this can be merged as-is. Optionally, consider adjusting the section title or separating required vs optional scopes to avoid confusion.
# Gpt Review
## Summary
Documentation update correctly adds the read:user scope and clarifies its optional nature. CI has passed and the change is limited to README content.
## Findings
| # | Severity | File | Line | Finding |
|---|----------|------|------|--------|
| 1 | [NIT] | `README.md` | 329 | Section title says 'Token Scopes Required' but the table includes an optional scope (`read:user`). Consider renaming to 'Token Scopes' or splitting into 'Required' and 'Optional' for clarity. |
## Recommendation
**APPROVE** — The change is a straightforward documentation improvement that adds the read:user scope and clarifies behavior without it. Since CI passed and there are no code changes, this can be merged as-is. Optionally, consider adjusting the section title or separating required vs optional scopes to avoid confusion.
---
*Review by gpt*
<!-- review-bot:gpt -->
---
*Evaluated against 4a1cb6b4*
[NIT] Section title says 'Token Scopes Required' but the table includes an optional scope (read:user). Consider renaming to 'Token Scopes' or splitting into 'Required' and 'Optional' for clarity.
**[NIT]** Section title says 'Token Scopes Required' but the table includes an optional scope (`read:user`). Consider renaming to 'Token Scopes' or splitting into 'Required' and 'Optional' for clarity.
[fit] Minor: Table separator changed from 9 to 8 dashes (|---------| → |--------|). Markdown renders identically either way — cosmetic NIT only, not blocking.
The change is coherent (single purpose: document read:user scope), fits the codebase style, accurately reflects the RequestReviewer functionality in gitea/client.go, and is complete for a documentation-only PR.
Ready for human review.
## Self-review: PASS
No blocking issues found.
**Observations:**
- [fit] Minor: Table separator changed from 9 to 8 dashes (`|---------|` → `|--------|`). Markdown renders identically either way — cosmetic NIT only, not blocking.
The change is coherent (single purpose: document `read:user` scope), fits the codebase style, accurately reflects the `RequestReviewer` functionality in `gitea/client.go`, and is complete for a documentation-only PR.
Ready for human review.
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
security-review-bot
sonnet-review-bot
gpt-review-bot
The
read:userscope is needed for the bot to self-request as a reviewer on PRs. Without it, the bot still functions but cannot add itself to the reviewer list.Closes #66
Security Review
Summary
The change updates documentation to include the optional
read:userscope and clarifies its purpose. There are no code changes and CI passed.Recommendation
APPROVE — This PR only adjusts README guidance around token scopes, adding
read:useras optional for self-requesting as a reviewer. No security-impacting code changes are present and CI has passed. Approve as-is.Review by security
Evaluated against
4a1cb6b4Sonnet Review
Summary
This is a pure documentation change adding the
read:userscope to the README's token scopes table, along with a clarifying note about its optional nature. CI passed, the change is accurate and well-worded.Findings
README.mdRecommendation
APPROVE — Approve. The change correctly documents the
read:userscope as optional but recommended, replaces a previously inaccurate statement ('Noread:userscope needed'), and CI passed. The only finding is a one-character difference in a Markdown table separator that has no functional impact.Review by sonnet
Evaluated against
4a1cb6b4@@ -330,3 +330,3 @@| Scope | Purpose ||-------|---------||-------|--------|[NIT] The header separator row changed from
|-------|---------|to|-------|--------|(one fewer dash in the second column). Both are valid Markdown table syntax, but the inconsistency with the surrounding table style is trivially cosmetic.Gpt Review
Summary
Documentation update correctly adds the read:user scope and clarifies its optional nature. CI has passed and the change is limited to README content.
Findings
README.mdread:user). Consider renaming to 'Token Scopes' or splitting into 'Required' and 'Optional' for clarity.Recommendation
APPROVE — The change is a straightforward documentation improvement that adds the read:user scope and clarifies behavior without it. Since CI passed and there are no code changes, this can be merged as-is. Optionally, consider adjusting the section title or separating required vs optional scopes to avoid confusion.
Review by gpt
Evaluated against
4a1cb6b4@@ -329,11 +329,12 @@ All flags have environment variable equivalents:### Token Scopes Required[NIT] Section title says 'Token Scopes Required' but the table includes an optional scope (
read:user). Consider renaming to 'Token Scopes' or splitting into 'Required' and 'Optional' for clarity.Self-review: PASS
No blocking issues found.
Observations:
|---------|→|--------|). Markdown renders identically either way — cosmetic NIT only, not blocking.The change is coherent (single purpose: document
read:userscope), fits the codebase style, accurately reflects theRequestReviewerfunctionality ingitea/client.go, and is complete for a documentation-only PR.Ready for human review.