[CDX-265] Add CC workflow #156
Conversation
Alexey-Pavlov
requested review from
HHHindawy and
VincentGalloro
as code owners
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR adds Claude Code review automation by introducing a GitHub Actions workflow that triggers on pull request events and a comprehensive review command documentation file with detailed code review guidelines and standards.
- Introduces automated PR review via GitHub Actions workflow
- Adds comprehensive review command documentation with security, quality, and testing standards
- Establishes structured review process with git-based diff analysis
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
.github/workflows/claude-review.yml |
Adds GitHub Actions workflow to trigger Claude PR reviews on pull request events using a shared reusable workflow |
.claude/commands/review.md |
Defines comprehensive code review command with process guidelines, quality standards, security checks, and output format specifications |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
.claude/commands/review.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| #### Security & Environment Configuration | ||
|
|
||
| - **Don't expose environment details client-side**: Read configuration from server-side instead of hardcoding environment-specific paths |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing grammatical article: "Read configuration from server-side" should be "Read configuration from the server-side" or "Read configuration from server-side code" for proper grammar.
| - **Don't expose environment details client-side**: Read configuration from server-side instead of hardcoding environment-specific paths | |
| - **Don't expose environment details client-side**: Read configuration from the server-side instead of hardcoding environment-specific paths |
.claude/commands/review.md
Outdated
| 1. **Branch Diff Analysis** | ||
|
|
||
| - Determine the name of the current branch to review | ||
| - Run `git merge-base origin/master [branch]` to find the common ancestor commit |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The command uses 'master' as the default branch, but line 7 mentions both 'master' and 'main'. Consider using a more flexible approach that detects the default branch (e.g., origin/HEAD or checking for the existence of origin/main first, then falling back to origin/master) to avoid failures in repositories that use 'main' as their default branch.
| - Run `git merge-base origin/master [branch]` to find the common ancestor commit | |
| - Run `git merge-base origin/HEAD [branch]` to find the common ancestor commit (using the default branch, whether 'main' or 'master') |
.claude/commands/review.md
Outdated
| 3. **Quality Validation** | ||
|
|
||
| - Verify the changes are covered with tests | ||
| - Ensure critical code paths have unit tests and edge cases are covered |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Spelling error: "Ensure critical code paths have unit tests" - the plural "tests" is grammatically correct here, but "and edge cases are covered" should read "and that edge cases are covered" for proper parallel structure and clarity.
| - Ensure critical code paths have unit tests and edge cases are covered | |
| - Ensure critical code paths have unit tests and that edge cases are covered |
.claude/commands/review.md
Outdated
| - Do not note what was changed in the actionable sections | ||
| - Do not acknowledge good practices in the actionable sections | ||
| - Focus on reviewing the code | ||
| - Do not run tests or linters |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The instruction "Do not run tests or linters" on line 64 contradicts the guidance in section 3 (lines 27-29) which states "Verify the changes are covered with tests" and "Ensure critical code paths have unit tests". While the review process shouldn't execute tests, the wording should be clarified to indicate that reviewing test coverage is expected, but executing tests is not.
| - Do not run tests or linters | |
| - Do not execute tests or linters; instead, review code and test coverage |
.claude/commands/review.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### Code Quality | ||
|
|
||
| - Includes appropriate tests (happy-path for new features, failing test for bugs) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inconsistent terminology: Line 69 specifies "happy-path for new features" but the more commonly used term in testing is "happy path" (without hyphen). Consider using "happy path" for consistency with standard testing terminology.
| - Includes appropriate tests (happy-path for new features, failing test for bugs) | |
| - Includes appropriate tests (happy path for new features, failing test for bugs) |
Code Review SummaryThis PR adds a GitHub Actions workflow to enable automated Claude Code reviews for pull requests. The workflow is triggered when PRs are opened, synchronized, or marked as ready for review. It leverages a reusable workflow from Constructor.io's shared resources repository. AnalysisWhat's Being Added:
Detailed Feedback✅ Strengths:
🔍 Considerations:
ConclusionOverall Assessment: ✅ APPROVED This is a well-structured, minimal change that follows best practices for GitHub Actions workflows. The implementation is clean and leverages organizational infrastructure effectively. The concerns raised are minor considerations rather than blocking issues. The addition of automated Claude Code reviews should improve code quality and provide helpful feedback to developers. No changes are required to merge this PR, though the suggestions above could enhance the developer experience. Great work on implementing automated code reviews! 🚀 |
No description provided.