managing-gitstream

name	managing-gitstream
description	Use when working with Gitstream — gitStream PR automation management including routing rules, merge policies, auto-labeling, and reviewer assignment based on code changes. Use when configuring gitStream continuous merge automation, defining PR classification rules, and optimizing review workflows.
connection_type	gitstream
preload	false

Managing gitStream

Overview

Manage gitStream continuous merge automation, including PR routing rules, automatic labeling, reviewer assignment based on change characteristics, and merge policy enforcement.

Key Capabilities

• Define PR classification rules based on file changes, size, and content
• Automate reviewer assignment using code expertise and change context
• Configure automatic labeling for PR categorization
• Set merge policies based on PR risk level
• Automate routine PR approvals for safe changes
• Define custom automation workflows using CM (Continuous Merge) files

Workflow

1 — Classification Rules

PR CLASSIFICATION (.cm FILE)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
automations:
  safe_changes:
    if:
      - {{ is.docs or is.tests or is.formatting }}
    run:
      - action: add-label@v1
        args: label: "safe-change"
      - action: approve@v1
      - action: add-comment@v1
        args: comment: "Auto-approved: safe change"

  needs_security_review:
    if:
      - {{ files | match(term='auth') | some }}
      - {{ files | match(term='security') | some }}
    run:
      - action: add-label@v1
        args: label: "security-review"
      - action: add-reviewers@v1
        args: reviewers: ['security-team']

2 — Reviewer Routing

REVIEWER ASSIGNMENT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
automations:
  assign_by_expertise:
    if:
      - true
    run:
      - action: add-reviewers@v1
        args:
          reviewers: {{ repo | codeExperts(gt=30) }}

  large_pr_review:
    if:
      - {{ branch.diff.size > 500 }}
    run:
      - action: add-label@v1
        args: label: "large-pr"
      - action: add-reviewers@v1
        args: reviewers: ['@senior-engineers']
      - action: set-required-approvals@v1
        args: approvals: 2

3 — Merge Policies

MERGE POLICIES
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
automations:
  enforce_squash_for_features:
    if:
      - {{ branch.name | includes(term='feature/') }}
    run:
      - action: merge@v1
        args: method: squash

  require_linear_history:
    if:
      - {{ branch.name | includes(term='release/') }}
    run:
      - action: merge@v1
        args:
          method: rebase
          wait_for_all_checks: true

Common Operations

Test CM Rules

Validate .cm file rules against sample PRs before deploying.

Monitor Automations

Track which automations trigger, auto-approval rates, and reviewer assignment patterns.

Optimize Review Routing

Analyze code expertise data to improve reviewer assignment accuracy.

Troubleshooting

Issue	Cause	Fix
Automation not triggering	CM file syntax error	Validate .cm file syntax and conditions
Wrong reviewers assigned	Expertise data stale	Refresh code expertise analysis
Auto-approve too broad	Classification too permissive	Tighten safe-change conditions
Merge policy conflict	Multiple matching rules	Ensure rule priority ordering is correct

Output Format

Present results as a structured report:

Managing Gitstream Report
═════════════════════════
Resources discovered: [count]

Resource       Status    Key Metric    Issues
──────────────────────────────────────────────
[name]         [ok/warn] [value]       [findings]

Summary: [total] resources | [ok] healthy | [warn] warnings | [crit] critical
Action Items: [list of prioritized findings]

Target ≤50 lines of output. Use tables for multi-resource comparisons.

Anti-Hallucination Rules

1. NEVER assume resource names — always discover via CLI/API in Phase 1 before referencing in Phase 2.
2. NEVER fabricate metric names or dimensions — verify against the service documentation or --help output.
3. NEVER mix CLI commands between service versions — confirm which version/API you are targeting.
4. ALWAYS use the discovery → verify → analyze chain — every resource referenced must have been discovered first.
5. ALWAYS handle empty results gracefully — an empty response is valid data, not an error to retry.

Counter-Rationalizations

Shortcut	Counter	Why
"I'll skip discovery and check known resources"	Always run Phase 1 discovery first	Resource names change, new resources appear — assumed names cause errors
"The user only asked for a quick check"	Follow the full discovery → analysis flow	Quick checks miss critical issues; structured analysis catches silent failures
"Default configuration is probably fine"	Audit configuration explicitly	Defaults often leave logging, security, and optimization features disabled
"Metrics aren't needed for this"	Always check relevant metrics when available	API/CLI responses show current state; metrics reveal trends and intermittent issues
"I don't have access to that"	Try the command and report the actual error	Assumed permission failures prevent useful investigation; actual errors are informative