Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
docs: issue contract for the autonomous loop (template + AGENTS.md) - #759
Conversation
The reviewer runs two deterministic rails against the issue body: it must quote the ask verbatim, and scope-overlap vouches for a diff that touches a file the issue names. An issue with neither gets correct work demoted to NO-GO, costing a revision cycle plus an escalation review. Adds an Agent task issue form and documents the contract in AGENTS.md, including the trap that naming files the fix does not touch is worse than naming none.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AI Automated Review
Full PR review.
Analysis engine: dsv4f@https://litellm.jory.dev/v1 (openai) — primary route
Recommendation: Approve. This is a focused, docs-only change: it adds a GitHub issue form (.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/agent-task.yml) for the autonomous coding loop and appends the corresponding contract to AGENTS.md. CI is green (Lint, Typecheck, Build, Tests, npm audit, Docker Build), and both changes follow existing repository conventions. The PR classifier listed no must_check entries, so there were no mandatory checklist items beyond the standard review. The only items I see are minor doc-consistency nits that can be addressed in a follow-up.
Change-by-change findings
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/agent-task.yml (added)
- The form matches the GitHub issue-form schema:
Context,The ask, andAcceptance criteriaare required;Expected filesis intentionally optional (novalidationsblock), which implements the documented "name none rather than guessing" rule. - Hardcoded
labels: ["type/chore"]is valid per AGENTS.md label conventions. - Info-level note: the
Expected filesplaceholder uses Go paths (internal/delivery/github.go), while this is a TypeScript/Next.js repo; using this repo's real paths would make the example clearer.
AGENTS.md (appended section)
- The new "Filing issues for the autonomous loop" section is clear and generic (no agent-specific names), matching Code Standard 1.
- Minor: the text says agents "must include both" fields, but the template's
Expected filesis optional and the next paragraph says "name none rather than guessing"; the wording should be aligned (e.g., "state the ask; name file paths when known"). - Minor:
foreman,reviewer rails, andGO/NO-GOare introduced without definitions or a pointer, which may be ambiguous for an agent reading AGENTS.md as a standalone contract.
Sources
- PR PR 759 metadata and full diff (2 files, +63/−0).
- Repository standards file
AGENTS.md(provided in corpus). - CI status API for commit
336121b: all 6 checks passed. - Repository history and impact scan (no
0.9.16references in repo history;alert-triage#14not present in history; foreman source is not vendored in this repo).
Standards Compliance
- Label Conventions:
type/choreis an allowed label. - Code Standard 1 (no agent-specific names in generic docs): satisfied — the new AGENTS.md text uses generic terms only.
- No changes affect environment variables, Prisma schema, API routes, Docker, or CI configuration, so the corresponding standards sections are unaffected.
- The "must include both" wording conflicts with the template's optional
filesfield (minor inconsistency; see finding below), but the actual implemented behavior matches the "name none when unsure" convention.
Unknowns or Needs Verification
- The PR body says the contract was verified against
scope_overlap.go/enforceReviewerIssueAskin foreman 0.9.16, but foreman is not vendored here and no0.9.16reference appears in repository history; this verification is not independently checkable from the corpus. - The referenced
alert-triage#14example is not present in repository history. - A read-only GitHub API check of
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATEon the base branch returned 404 (expected, since this PR creates that directory), and the.githublisting could not be completed before the tool budget was exhausted, so I could not confirm whether other issue templates or a blank-issue config exist and how they interact with this new template. - The tool-harness section in the corpus only said "planning pending"; no harness findings were available to review.
| Issues here are picked up by an autonomous coding loop (dispatch → foreman), and two | ||
| parts of the body feed deterministic reviewer rails. Agents filing issues in this repo | ||
| must include both. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor (docs): The new text says agents 'must include both' (ask + files), but the following paragraph says 'name none rather than guessing' and the template's Expected files field is optional; align the wording so the contract is unambiguous.
Automated finding from AI PR review.
| ## Filing issues for the autonomous loop | ||
| Issues here are picked up by an autonomous coding loop (dispatch → foreman), and two |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor (docs): The new section introduces 'foreman', 'reviewer rails', and 'GO/NO-GO' without definitions or links, making the agent-facing contract ambiguous for readers outside that external codebase.
Automated finding from AI PR review.
| are confident about — naming files the diff does not touch reads as scope | ||
| drift and gets the change rejected. Leave empty if unsure. | ||
| placeholder: | | ||
| internal/delivery/github.go |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Info (style): The Expected files placeholder uses Go-style paths while this repo is TypeScript/Next.js; using this repo's real paths would make the example less confusing.
Automated finding from AI PR review.
Summary
Agents file most issues in this repo, and two parts of the body feed deterministic reviewer rails:
An issue with neither loses correct work to a false rejection plus an escalation review — observed today on alert-triage#14.
Adds an
Agent taskissue form and documents the contract in AGENTS.md (appended), including the trap that naming files the fix does not touch is worse than naming none (it reads as scope drift and also rejects).Verified against
scope_overlap.go/enforceReviewerIssueAskin foreman 0.9.16.