repo-review-full

name	repo-review-full
description	Full multi-skill PR review. Routes every host harness through Pi, fans out a parallel Tintin worker per applicable checklist, and posts every diff-anchored BLOCK/WARN as an unresolved inline comment and lists NIT findings in the review body. Requires the tinaudio-synth-setter-skills plugin.

repo-review-full — Multi-Skill Parallel PR Review

The review implementation is Pi-native. Claude Code and Codex invoke the same headless Pi entrypoint instead of maintaining separate nested-agent harnesses.

What you (the main agent) do

1. Capture the PR argument: if the command was invoked with an explicit <N>, keep it; otherwise the orchestrator resolves the PR from the current branch.

2. If SYNTH_SETTER_PI_REVIEW is not 1, follow agent/_shared/pi-review-host-contract.md with repo-review-full as the selected skill. Relay the command's output verbatim and stop; the child Pi session owns the review.

3. If SYNTH_SETTER_PI_REVIEW=1, do not invoke the launcher again. Execute the orchestrator brief in this Pi session and use Tintin's pr-review-worker Agent for the flat Step 4 fan-out. Follow the allocation, fallback, merge, and transcript-audit rules in the shared analysis exactly.

4. Relay the returned html_url and one-line summary to the user verbatim. Do not re-run or second-guess the pipeline.

Orchestrator agent brief

You are the orchestrator for a full multi-skill PR review. Complete every step in order and do not stop early. "You" throughout the steps below and in the shared analysis file means you, this orchestrator agent.

Steps 1–6 — run the shared analysis pipeline. Read and follow agent/skills/_shared/repo-review-full-analysis.md Steps 1 through 6. That file owns PR resolution, PR-health inspection, skill selection, the parallel fan-out, finding aggregation, and findings-JSON construction. When it says "the calling skill," that is repo-review-full:

• PR number: <N>. If no explicit number was provided, first resolve it from the current branch (N=$(gh pr view --json number -q .number)) and use that value wherever <N> appears in the shared analysis commands (e.g. gh pr view <N> ...) — never run a command with the literal <N> placeholder.
• Use repo-review-full as the calling-skill name in any [<calling-skill>:block] prefixes inside the ## PR health bullets.
• Write the findings JSON to /tmp/repo-review-full-findings.json.
• Phrase the review_body lead-in so every BLOCK/WARN reads as being posted as an unresolved inline thread and every NIT as advisory body-only (sample wording is in the shared file).
• Set the top-level "event" field: REQUEST_CHANGES if any finding is a BLOCK (any [*:block], including folded PR-health BLOCKs), else COMMENT if any WARN or NIT exists, else APPROVE. The self-review COMMENT fallback (when the bot is the PR author) is automatic in post_review.py.
• On any terminal failure after target resolution, follow the shared Terminal failure delivery section with --mode full. Its top-level COMMENT review replaces ordinary Step 7; do not invoke post_review.py afterward.

Step 7 — submit the review.

python3 agent/skills/_shared/post_review.py < /tmp/repo-review-full-findings.json

post_review.py:

• Anchors each finding to its target line if that line falls inside a diff hunk.
• Falls back to the nearest in-hunk line on the same file with a cross-ref note prepended to the body.
• Rolls orphan findings (file outside the diff) into the review body under ## Findings on files outside the diff.
• Submits with the payload's event (REQUEST_CHANGES / COMMENT / APPROVE). On a self-review 422 (the bot is the PR author) it retries once as event=COMMENT with an event-aware intent banner prepended — ⛔ N BLOCKING finding(s) — changes required for a REQUEST_CHANGES downgrade, ✅ No findings for an APPROVE downgrade — so the original intent stays visible. Threads stay unresolved.

Return value. Reply with ONLY the helper's html_url and a one-line summary: Posted N inline findings: B BLOCK + W WARN across K skills (+ X NIT in the body); PR-health flags: <M merge-conflict / F failing-check>. If PR-health found nothing, drop the trailing ; PR-health flags: ... clause. This text is the main agent's deliverable — return data, not narration.

When to use the no-comments sibling instead

/repo-review-full-no-comments runs the same analysis pipeline through its own orchestrator agent (delegating Steps 3–6 to the shared file; it owns Steps 1–2 itself so it can also run against a local branch with no PR open) but prints the aggregated report to the user instead of posting inline comments. Reach for it when you want a local dry-run of the review (no GitHub side effects), as a pre-PR gate before the branch is pushed, when you're iterating on a PR before it's ready for reviewers, or when posting publicly is undesirable for any reason.