managing-phabricator

name	managing-phabricator
description	Use when working with Phabricator — phabricator Differential code review management including review workflows, Herald rules for automated actions, audit trails, and reviewer assignment. Use when managing Phabricator code review processes, Herald automation, and Differential revision workflows.
connection_type	phabricator
preload	false

Managing Phabricator

Overview

Manage Phabricator Differential code review workflows, including revision management, Herald rules for automation, reviewer policies, and audit configuration.

Key Capabilities

• Manage Differential revisions and review workflows
• Configure Herald rules for automated reviewer assignment and actions
• Set up audit rules for post-commit review
• Define reviewer policies and blocking reviewers
• Configure repository-level review requirements
• Manage review groups and project-based reviewer pools

Workflow

1 — Differential Review Setup

DIFFERENTIAL CONFIGURATION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Review status flow:
    Needs Review -> Accepted / Needs Revision
    Needs Revision -> Needs Review (after update)
    Accepted -> Closed (after landing)
[ ] Blocking reviewers: YES / NO
[ ] Accept with comments allowed: YES / NO
[ ] Require test plan: YES / NO
[ ] Auto-close revisions on push: YES / NO

2 — Herald Rules

HERALD AUTOMATION RULES
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Rule: Security File Review
  When: Differential revision is created
  If: Changed file path matches /src/auth/**
  Action: Add reviewer @security-team (blocking)
  Action: Add subscriber @security-leads

Rule: Large Diff Warning
  When: Differential revision is created
  If: Diff size > 500 lines
  Action: Add comment "Large diff - consider splitting"
  Action: Add reviewer @senior-engineers

Rule: Database Changes
  When: Differential revision is created
  If: Changed file matches *.sql OR migrations/**
  Action: Add reviewer @dba-team (blocking)
  Action: Flag for special attention

3 — Audit Configuration

AUDIT RULES
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Post-commit audit rules:
    - All commits to main: audit by @tech-leads
    - Commits without review: audit by @engineering-managers
    - Commits by new engineers: audit by @mentors
[ ] Audit status tracking: concern-raised / accepted
[ ] Audit response SLA: ___ hours

Common Operations

List Pending Revisions

Query open Differential revisions awaiting review action.

Herald Rule Testing

Test Herald rules against sample revisions to validate behavior.

Audit Compliance

Track post-commit audits and ensure timely responses.

Troubleshooting

Issue	Cause	Fix
Herald rule not triggering	Condition mismatch	Test rule against revision in Herald test console
Reviewer not notified	Notification preferences	Check user notification settings
Revision stuck in review	Blocking reviewer absent	Reassign blocking reviewer or remove requirement
Audit not created	Rule scope mismatch	Verify repository is within audit rule scope

Output Format

Present results as a structured report:

Managing Phabricator 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