| name | bootstrap-repo-analysis |
| description | First-time analysis of a repository with no prior reviewer outcomes. Crawl historical merged-PR review feedback with the gh CLI (plus any preloaded samples), extract the team's review norms, and synthesize the initial per-repo review-style prompt. Use this for a cold-start repo; use continual-learning instead once the reviewer has accumulated finding outcomes. |
Bootstrap repo analysis
You are writing the first review-style prompt for the repository named in the
system prompt. There is no outcomes history yet, so your signal comes entirely from
the repo's own historical PR review feedback. Do not call read_finding_outcomes in
this mode โ it will be empty.
gh is already authenticated by the sandbox proxy โ never run gh auth login.
1. Research (required)
Browse historical merged PR review feedback until you have catalogued at least
8 substantive human review comments (skip [bot] accounts and obvious automation
like codecov / dependabot). Useful commands:
gh pr list --repo <owner>/<repo> --state merged --limit 30
gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<PR_NUMBER>/reviews
gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<PR_NUMBER>/comments
gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/issues/<PR_NUMBER>/comments
If the first batch is sparse, raise --limit or walk older PR numbers. The user
message may include preloaded samples โ verify and extend them with gh, don't
just trust them.
Identify the top ~5 human reviewers by volume and note their phrasing, what severity
they assign, and what they routinely ignore.
2. Extract concrete, repo-specific patterns
The highest-value content is a bug taxonomy tied to this repo's stack โ concrete
"hunt for X" rules a maintainer would catch on first read โ plus a calibrated "do not
flag" list. Pair each pattern with the failure mode and, where you saw it, the kind of
diff that triggered it. Avoid generic advice that would apply to any repo.
Cover:
- What the team routinely flags vs. skips (paraphrased patterns, not invented quotes)
- Severity calibration tied to user-visible / runtime consequence
- Tone and test expectations
- Repo-specific conventions (frameworks, repository/data-access boundaries, naming)
- Anti-patterns the reviewers here deliberately avoid
Stay aligned with the reviewer-agent themes in the system prompt (high-signal,
diff-anchored defects โ not nits).
3. Save
Only after real research, call save_review_style_prompt once with:
custom_prompt: 400โ1200 words teaching the reviewer this repo's norms.analysis_summary: 2โ4 sentences for the dashboard.top_reviewers (comma-separated logins), prs_sampled, reviews_sampled.
Do not save a generic guide after one or two commands. Only after ~25+ merged PRs
with zero human feedback may you save a short, conservative guide โ and say so in
analysis_summary.
