Awesome Reviewers

When authoring/editing CI-driven “step” scripts for automation, treat {auto_mode} as a strict, schema-driven contract:

• No interactive dead-ends: In {auto_mode}, avoid halting/asking. If the invocation (e.g., spec file or staged changes context) lets you infer intent, select the correct option automatically; only prompt if inference truly fails.
• Non-interactive control flow: Follow the automation rules exactly (e.g., apply patches without presenting menus; ensure required sections are skipped when specified).
• Write required CI artifacts/results: After the automated run, emit the expected result JSON (using the schema) and end the turn deterministically.
• Match the machine-readable schema precisely: If the CI gate reads from YAML frontmatter, instructions must reference the frontmatter fields (e.g., status:) rather than human markdown headings.
• Avoid ambiguous rule references: When citing automation rules, reference them unambiguously (e.g., with explicit relative paths) so validators/linters don’t misinterpret prose.

Example (schema-correct automation status instruction):

# Wrong (human-only wording):
# Update the "Status section" to done/in-progress

# Correct (schema-driven wording):
Update the spec's YAML frontmatter `status:` field to `done`/`in-progress`.

Example (intent inference to avoid blocking):

If invocation indicates “code-review staged changes”
→ auto-select the corresponding review option and proceed
instead of asking “What do you want to review?”

This site is open source. Improve this page.