Repository navigation
Task PR template; the review guide checks what hooks can't - #22
Conversation
Agreed deliverables, decisions, PRs and issues in the README; restating it elsewhere and editing an earlier task are findings; findings are checked in the deliverables. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011aQpF4MA9v7dTVK1FqMMVJ
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 37e5114366
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| the next agent. Each fact has one home, the task README: a report or PR body that restates it instead of linking | ||
| is a finding, because the copies drift. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For any PR promoting a gitignored object, this new rule conflicts with the unchanged promotion instruction at lines 37–39: that section requires the PR itself to say where the object went, while this sentence makes restating that README fact in the PR body a finding. A reviewer cannot apply both rules consistently; update the promotion check to inspect a linked task README (or explicitly exempt the destination) so compliant promotion PRs are not flagged either way.
AGENTS.md reference: {{cookiecutter.project_name}}/AGENTS.md:L8-L11
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed in 5d53931: the promotion check now looks for the destination in the README and for a sign-off flag in the PR body, which is what the plugin's PR body asks for (quadbio/analysis-workflow#14).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011aQpF4MA9v7dTVK1FqMMVJ
The PR template holds a task PR's details; the task README summarizes it. The review guide drops what the plugin's hooks enforce and points to the PR template. AGENTS.md says when to use the gpu environment; the project README links the plugin's data layout instead of restating it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011aQpF4MA9v7dTVK1FqMMVJ
Marius1311
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 458fa6cbc6
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| the next agent. Each fact is written once: a PR's details in its body, laid out by | ||
| `.github/pull_request_template.md`; the task README an overview with a short summary of each PR; findings in the | ||
| deliverables. A file that restates another instead of linking to it is a finding, because the copies drift. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For every task PR reporting scientific results, the required ## Findings section and the scientific-correctness check at lines 52–54 require the PR body to repeat what its deliverables show, while this rule assigns findings to the deliverables and requires reviewers to flag files that restate one another. Authors therefore cannot satisfy both checks consistently; explicitly permit a concise PR-body summary/link, or remove the Findings requirement from the PR template.
AGENTS.md reference: {{cookiecutter.project_name}}/AGENTS.md:L8-L11
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed in 3ce67d6: the single-home rule now covers the files that keep changing (deliverables, task README). A PR body is the record as of its merge, so it may state what the deliverables showed then; the PR template's Findings section stays.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011aQpF4MA9v7dTVK1FqMMVJ
Goes with quadbio/analysis-workflow#14: a PR's body holds its details, the task README summarizes each PR, and a hook holds the task layout to the plugin's task template.
.github/pull_request_template.md: the task-PR layout replaces the generic software one. Sections: Deliverables, Method and decisions (who took each and why), Findings, Needs you, Related; a section with nothing to say reads "None."REVIEW_GUIDE.md:AGENTS.md: when to use thegpuenvironment (rapids-singlecell for neighbors, UMAP and clustering on more than about 100k cells), moved from the plugin.README.md: links the plugin's data layout and lanes instead of restating them.Checked by rendering a project from this branch with cruft and running the plugin's hooks on a task in it.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_011aQpF4MA9v7dTVK1FqMMVJ