Add review agent style guidelines to .gemini/styleguide.md by stuartmorgan-g · Pull Request #9805 · flutter/packages

stuartmorgan-g · 2025-08-14T13:21:15Z

Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it:

Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see this particularly problematic example)
Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested.

This text is based on some iteration with Gemini, under the theory that the AI model has far more exposure to examples of good prompts than I do. 🤷🏻

Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](#9795 (review))) - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. This text is based on some iteration with Gemini, under the theory that the AI model has far more exposure to examples of good prompts than I do. 🤷🏻

gemini-code-assist · 2025-08-14T13:21:20Z

Note

Gemini is unable to generate a review for this pull request due to the file types involved not being currently supported.

stuartmorgan-g · 2025-08-14T13:22:32Z

+
+When providing a summary, the review agent must adhere to the following principles:
+- **Be Objective:** Focus on a neutral, descriptive summary of the changes. Avoid subjective value judgments
+ like "good," "bad," "positive," or "negative." The goal is to report what the code does, not to evaluate it.


The "not to evaluate it" may end up swinging too far the other way; we'll have to see if it stops pointing out high-level issues (e.g., insufficient testing).

…lutter/packages#9805)

flutter/packages@6cb9113...09533b7 2025-08-14 engine-flutter-autoroll@skia.org Roll Flutter from 34c2a3b to f4334d2 (18 revisions) (flutter/packages#9807) 2025-08-14 stuartmorgan@google.com Add review agent style guidelines to .gemini/styleguide.md (flutter/packages#9805) 2025-08-13 koji.wakamiya@gmail.com [go_router_builder] Support extension types (flutter/packages#9458) 2025-08-13 engine-flutter-autoroll@skia.org Roll Flutter from e2a347b to 34c2a3b (41 revisions) (flutter/packages#9803) If this roll has caused a breakage, revert this CL and stop the roller using the controls here: https://autoroll.skia.org/r/flutter-packages-flutter-autoroll Please CC flutter-ecosystem@google.com on the revert to ensure that a human is aware of the problem. To file a bug in Flutter: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/new/choose To report a problem with the AutoRoller itself, please file a bug: https://issues.skia.org/issues/new?component=1389291&template=1850622 Documentation for the AutoRoller is here: https://skia.googlesource.com/buildbot/+doc/main/autoroll/README.md

) Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter#9795 (review))) - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. This text is based on some iteration with Gemini, under the theory that the AI model has far more exposure to examples of good prompts than I do. 🤷🏻

@stuartmorgan-g

A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on [Discord]. **Note**: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of [Gemini Code Assist for GitHub](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed.  [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md

@stuartmorgan-g

A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on [Discord]. **Note**: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of [Gemini Code Assist for GitHub](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed.  [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md

@stuartmorgan-g

A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on [Discord]. **Note**: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of [Gemini Code Assist for GitHub](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed.  [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md

@stuartmorgan-g

…74000) A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on [Discord]. **Note**: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of [Gemini Code Assist for GitHub](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed.  [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md

@stuartmorgan-g

…74000) A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on [Discord]. **Note**: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of [Gemini Code Assist for GitHub](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed.  [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md

flutter/packages@6cb9113...09533b7 2025-08-14 engine-flutter-autoroll@skia.org Roll Flutter from 34c2a3b to f4334d2 (18 revisions) (flutter/packages#9807) 2025-08-14 stuartmorgan@google.com Add review agent style guidelines to .gemini/styleguide.md (flutter/packages#9805) 2025-08-13 koji.wakamiya@gmail.com [go_router_builder] Support extension types (flutter/packages#9458) 2025-08-13 engine-flutter-autoroll@skia.org Roll Flutter from e2a347b to 34c2a3b (41 revisions) (flutter/packages#9803) If this roll has caused a breakage, revert this CL and stop the roller using the controls here: https://autoroll.skia.org/r/flutter-packages-flutter-autoroll Please CC flutter-ecosystem@google.com on the revert to ensure that a human is aware of the problem. To file a bug in Flutter: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/new/choose To report a problem with the AutoRoller itself, please file a bug: https://issues.skia.org/issues/new?component=1389291&template=1850622 Documentation for the AutoRoller is here: https://skia.googlesource.com/buildbot/+doc/main/autoroll/README.md

@stuartmorgan-g

…74000) A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on [Discord]. **Note**: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of [Gemini Code Assist for GitHub](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed.  [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md

flutter/packages@6cb9113...09533b7 2025-08-14 engine-flutter-autoroll@skia.org Roll Flutter from 34c2a3b to f4334d2 (18 revisions) (flutter/packages#9807) 2025-08-14 stuartmorgan@google.com Add review agent style guidelines to .gemini/styleguide.md (flutter/packages#9805) 2025-08-13 koji.wakamiya@gmail.com [go_router_builder] Support extension types (flutter/packages#9458) 2025-08-13 engine-flutter-autoroll@skia.org Roll Flutter from e2a347b to 34c2a3b (41 revisions) (flutter/packages#9803) If this roll has caused a breakage, revert this CL and stop the roller using the controls here: https://autoroll.skia.org/r/flutter-packages-flutter-autoroll Please CC flutter-ecosystem@google.com on the revert to ensure that a human is aware of the problem. To file a bug in Flutter: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/new/choose To report a problem with the AutoRoller itself, please file a bug: https://issues.skia.org/issues/new?component=1389291&template=1850622 Documentation for the AutoRoller is here: https://skia.googlesource.com/buildbot/+doc/main/autoroll/README.md

@stuartmorgan-g

…74000) A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on [Discord]. **Note**: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of [Gemini Code Assist for GitHub](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed.  [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md

@stuartmorgan-g

…74000) A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on [Discord]. **Note**: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of [Gemini Code Assist for GitHub](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed.  [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md

flutter/packages@6cb9113...09533b7 2025-08-14 engine-flutter-autoroll@skia.org Roll Flutter from 34c2a3b to f4334d2 (18 revisions) (flutter/packages#9807) 2025-08-14 stuartmorgan@google.com Add review agent style guidelines to .gemini/styleguide.md (flutter/packages#9805) 2025-08-13 koji.wakamiya@gmail.com [go_router_builder] Support extension types (flutter/packages#9458) 2025-08-13 engine-flutter-autoroll@skia.org Roll Flutter from e2a347b to 34c2a3b (41 revisions) (flutter/packages#9803) If this roll has caused a breakage, revert this CL and stop the roller using the controls here: https://autoroll.skia.org/r/flutter-packages-flutter-autoroll Please CC flutter-ecosystem@google.com on the revert to ensure that a human is aware of the problem. To file a bug in Flutter: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/new/choose To report a problem with the AutoRoller itself, please file a bug: https://issues.skia.org/issues/new?component=1389291&template=1850622 Documentation for the AutoRoller is here: https://skia.googlesource.com/buildbot/+doc/main/autoroll/README.md

@stuartmorgan-g

…74000) A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on [Discord]. **Note**: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of [Gemini Code Assist for GitHub](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed.  [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md

) Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter#9795 (review))) - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. This text is based on some iteration with Gemini, under the theory that the AI model has far more exposure to examples of good prompts than I do. 🤷🏻

stuartmorgan-g requested review from Piinks and jtmcdole August 14, 2025 13:21

stuartmorgan-g commented Aug 14, 2025
View reviewed changes

jtmcdole approved these changes Aug 14, 2025
View reviewed changes

stuartmorgan-g added the autosubmit Merge PR when tree becomes green via auto submit App label Aug 14, 2025

auto-submitBot merged commit 84f113e into mainAug 14, 2025
80 checks passed

auto-submitBot deleted the review-agent-guidelines branch August 14, 2025 16:29

engine-flutter-autoroll added a commit to engine-flutter-autoroll/flutter that referenced this pull request Aug 14, 2025
84f113eAdd review agent style guidelines to .gemini/styleguide.md (f…
69e7479
…lutter/packages#9805)

engine-flutter-autoroll mentioned this pull request Aug 14, 2025
Roll Packages from 6cb9113d5fa4 to 84f113e07f33 (3 revisions) flutter/flutter#173778
Closed

engine-flutter-autoroll added a commit to engine-flutter-autoroll/flutter that referenced this pull request Aug 14, 2025
84f113eAdd review agent style guidelines to .gemini/styleguide.md (f…
085d42a
…lutter/packages#9805)

engine-flutter-autoroll mentioned this pull request Aug 14, 2025
Roll Packages from 6cb9113d5fa4 to 09533b7d5d66 (4 revisions) flutter/flutter#173789
Merged

jmagman mentioned this pull request Aug 18, 2025
Add review agent style guidelines to .gemini/styleguide.md flutter/flutter#174000
Merged
9 tasks

jmagman mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2025
Adds Gemini CLI to Github Actions flutter/samples#2718
Merged
5 tasks

ericwindmill mentioned this pull request Sep 30, 2025
Add review agent style guidelines to Gemini actions flutter/samples#2733
Closed

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

Add review agent style guidelines to .gemini/styleguide.md - #9805

Add review agent style guidelines to .gemini/styleguide.md#9805
auto-submit[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
review-agent-guidelines

stuartmorgan-g commented Aug 14, 2025

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assistBot commented Aug 14, 2025

Uh oh!

stuartmorgan-gAug 14, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

stuartmorgan-g commented Aug 14, 2025

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assistBot commented Aug 14, 2025

Uh oh!

stuartmorgan-gAug 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants