830 lines
26 KiB
Markdown
830 lines
26 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: coderabbit-feedback
|
|
description: Use when CodeRabbit AI has posted review comments on a PR - interactively classify feedback by severity, discuss recommendations with user, apply agreed changes, and ensure mandatory commit and PR comment workflow with verification
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# CodeRabbit Feedback
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
Interactive processing of CodeRabbit AI review comments through user conversation: collect and classify feedback, discuss CRITICAL/MAJOR items for immediate action, analyze MINOR items with recommendations, and complete workflow with verified git commits and PR comments.
|
|
|
|
**Core principle:** Interactive severity-based workflow with user conversation (collect → discuss → apply together → verify completion).
|
|
|
|
## When to Use
|
|
|
|
**Use when:**
|
|
- CodeRabbit has posted review comments on your current PR
|
|
- You need to process AI feedback with user input
|
|
- You want to discuss which suggestions to apply
|
|
- You need guided review with recommendations and rationale
|
|
|
|
**Don't use when:**
|
|
- No PR exists or no CodeRabbit comments
|
|
- Uncommitted changes exist (must commit first)
|
|
- Fully automated processing without interaction is required
|
|
|
|
## Quick Reference
|
|
|
|
| Phase | Mode | Key Actions |
|
|
|-------|------|-------------|
|
|
| **Collection** | Auto | Pre-check → Discover PR → Collect 200 comments → Filter & Classify |
|
|
| **Discussion** | **Interactive** | Present items → Get user decisions → Analyze MINOR with rationale |
|
|
| **Application** | Auto | Apply agreed changes → Commit & Push |
|
|
| **Verification** | Auto | Post PR comment → Verify @coderabbitai resolve tag |
|
|
|
|
## Severity Classification
|
|
|
|
### CRITICAL (Immediate Discussion Required)
|
|
- **Security**: SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, auth bypass, sensitive data exposure
|
|
- **Data Loss**: Destructive operations, cascade deletes, corruption risks
|
|
- **Breaking Bugs**: Nil pointer errors, type crashes, unhandled exceptions
|
|
- **Critical Logic**: Payment errors, authorization failures, data integrity violations
|
|
|
|
### MAJOR (Important Discussion)
|
|
- **Performance**: N+1 queries, memory leaks, slow algorithms, missing indexes
|
|
- **Resource Issues**: File handle leaks, connection pool exhaustion, unbounded loops
|
|
- **Significant Bugs**: Wrong calculations, incorrect validations, race conditions
|
|
- **Production Impact**: High error rates, significant user impact, reliability issues
|
|
|
|
### MINOR (Analyze & Recommend)
|
|
- **Code Quality**: Variable naming, method extraction, DRY violations
|
|
- **Style**: Formatting preferences, comment style, code organization
|
|
- **Documentation**: Missing comments, outdated docs, unclear naming
|
|
- **Speculative**: "Could be", "might consider", optional improvements
|
|
|
|
### ALWAYS SKIP (Never Process)
|
|
- Comments with resolution markers: ✅☑️🟢 or "resolved", "fixed", "applied"
|
|
- Threads with `@coderabbitai resolve` command
|
|
- Developer confirmation replies: "Applied", "Done", "Fixed"
|
|
- Duplicate suggestions (process once only)
|
|
|
|
## Language Detection
|
|
|
|
**IMPORTANT: Detect and use user's preferred language for all communication.**
|
|
|
|
**Detection priority (check in order):**
|
|
1. **User's current messages** - What language is the user speaking in this conversation?
|
|
2. **Project context** - Check CLAUDE.md, README.md, recent commits for language patterns
|
|
3. **Git history** - `git log --oneline -5` to see commit message language
|
|
4. **Default** - If no clear indication, use **English**
|
|
|
|
**Apply detected language to:**
|
|
- All conversational messages with user
|
|
- PR comment content
|
|
- Reports and summaries
|
|
- Error messages and warnings
|
|
- Status updates
|
|
|
|
**Always keep in English:**
|
|
- Code examples
|
|
- Bash commands and scripts
|
|
- File paths
|
|
- Technical API calls
|
|
|
|
**Language variable usage in templates:**
|
|
```
|
|
[In user's language] ← This marker means content should be in detected language
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Example detection:**
|
|
```
|
|
# User writes in Korean → Use Korean
|
|
# User writes in English → Use English
|
|
# User writes in Spanish → Use Spanish
|
|
# No clear signal → Use English (default)
|
|
```
|
|
- [ ] Apply agreed changes
|
|
- [ ] Commit and push changes
|
|
- [ ] Post PR comment with verification
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
3. **Discover PR**: Find current PR from branch
|
|
```bash
|
|
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current)
|
|
gh pr list --head "$BRANCH" --json number,title,url
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
4. **Collect Comments with Pagination** (up to 200 comments):
|
|
|
|
**Method 1: GraphQL with Pagination (Recommended)**
|
|
```bash
|
|
get_all_comments() {
|
|
local pr_number=$1
|
|
local owner=$2
|
|
local repo=$3
|
|
local cursor=""
|
|
local has_next=true
|
|
local all_comments="[]"
|
|
|
|
while [ "$has_next" = "true" ]; do
|
|
local query='query($owner:String!, $repo:String!, $number:Int!, $cursor:String) {
|
|
repository(owner:$owner, name:$repo) {
|
|
pullRequest(number:$number) {
|
|
comments(first:100, after:$cursor) {
|
|
pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor }
|
|
nodes {
|
|
id
|
|
author { login }
|
|
body
|
|
createdAt
|
|
replies(first:10) {
|
|
nodes { author { login } body createdAt }
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}'
|
|
|
|
local result=$(gh api graphql -f query="$query" \
|
|
-F owner="$owner" -F repo="$repo" -F number="$pr_number" \
|
|
${cursor:+-F cursor="$cursor"})
|
|
|
|
local page_comments=$(echo "$result" | jq '.data.repository.pullRequest.comments.nodes')
|
|
all_comments=$(echo "$all_comments" | jq ". + $page_comments")
|
|
|
|
has_next=$(echo "$result" | jq -r '.data.repository.pullRequest.comments.pageInfo.hasNextPage')
|
|
cursor=$(echo "$result" | jq -r '.data.repository.pullRequest.comments.pageInfo.endCursor')
|
|
|
|
[ "$has_next" = "false" ] && break
|
|
[ $(echo "$all_comments" | jq 'length') -ge 200 ] && break
|
|
done
|
|
|
|
echo "$all_comments" | jq 'sort_by(.createdAt) | reverse | .[:200]'
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Method 2: REST API with Pagination (Alternative)**
|
|
```bash
|
|
get_all_comments_rest() {
|
|
local pr_number=$1
|
|
local page=1
|
|
local per_page=100
|
|
local all_comments="[]"
|
|
|
|
while [ $page -le 2 ]; do # Max 2 pages = 200 comments
|
|
local result=$(gh api "repos/$OWNER/$REPO/issues/$pr_number/comments?per_page=$per_page&page=$page")
|
|
|
|
[ "$(echo "$result" | jq 'length')" -eq 0 ] && break
|
|
|
|
all_comments=$(echo "$all_comments" | jq ". + $result")
|
|
((page++))
|
|
done
|
|
|
|
echo "$all_comments" | jq 'sort_by(.created_at) | reverse | .[:200]'
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
5. **Filter**: Process only unresolved CodeRabbit comments
|
|
- Filter for author containing "coderabbitai" or "bot"
|
|
- Exclude bodies with: "resolved", "fixed", "applied", "@coderabbitai resolve"
|
|
- Check entire thread (including replies) for resolution markers
|
|
- Sort by recency (newest first)
|
|
|
|
6. **Classify**: Assign severity to each actionable item
|
|
- Extract file path, line number, and specific change
|
|
- Match against severity criteria (CRITICAL > MAJOR > MINOR)
|
|
- Skip summaries without actionable items
|
|
|
|
### Phase 2: Interactive Discussion
|
|
|
|
**Step 2.1 - Present Summary and CRITICAL/MAJOR Items:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
[In user's language]
|
|
|
|
Found feedback: 23 items total
|
|
- CRITICAL: 2 items (security vulnerability 1, data loss risk 1)
|
|
- MAJOR: 5 items (performance issues 3, significant bugs 2)
|
|
- MINOR: 16 items (code quality improvements)
|
|
|
|
## Items Requiring Immediate Attention (CRITICAL/MAJOR 7 items)
|
|
|
|
### CRITICAL
|
|
1. `auth/login.ts:45` - SQL Injection vulnerability
|
|
- Issue: User input directly in query
|
|
- Suggestion: Use prepared statements
|
|
- Risk: ⚠️ High (security)
|
|
|
|
2. `data/sync.ts:89` - Data loss risk
|
|
- Issue: Sequential deletes without transaction
|
|
- Suggestion: Add transaction wrapper
|
|
- Risk: ⚠️ High (data integrity)
|
|
|
|
### MAJOR
|
|
3. `api/users.ts:123` - N+1 query problem
|
|
- Issue: Individual queries in loop
|
|
- Suggestion: Use eager loading for batch retrieval
|
|
- Impact: Performance (currently 101 queries for 100 items)
|
|
|
|
4. `cache/redis.ts:56` - Memory leak
|
|
- Issue: Missing connection close
|
|
- Suggestion: Add close() in finally block
|
|
- Impact: Resource exhaustion
|
|
|
|
[...more items]
|
|
|
|
How would you like to proceed?
|
|
- [1] Apply all (recommended - CRITICAL/MAJOR are mandatory fixes)
|
|
- [2] Review individually (confirm each item)
|
|
- [3] See details first
|
|
- [4] Start with MINOR analysis
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Step 2.2 - Individual Selection Mode (Option 2):**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
[In user's language]
|
|
|
|
Reviewing each item individually.
|
|
|
|
[1/7] CRITICAL: `auth/login.ts:45` - SQL Injection vulnerability
|
|
|
|
Current code:
|
|
```typescript
|
|
const user = await db.query(
|
|
`SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = '${email}'`
|
|
);
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Suggested change:
|
|
```typescript
|
|
const user = await db.query(
|
|
'SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = $1',
|
|
[email]
|
|
);
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**CodeRabbit Analysis:**
|
|
- SQL Injection attack possible
|
|
- Risk of full data breach with malicious input
|
|
|
|
**Severity:** ⚠️ CRITICAL (immediate fix required)
|
|
|
|
Apply this change? [Y/n/skip]
|
|
> Y
|
|
|
|
✅ Added to apply list
|
|
|
|
[2/7] CRITICAL: `data/sync.ts:89` - Data loss risk
|
|
[...]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Step 2.3 - MINOR Analysis & Recommendations:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
[In user's language]
|
|
|
|
✅ CRITICAL/MAJOR selection complete (7 items)
|
|
|
|
Now analyzing 16 MINOR recommendations.
|
|
Reviewing each item to provide application recommendations.
|
|
|
|
[Analyzing...]
|
|
|
|
## MINOR Recommendations Analysis Complete
|
|
|
|
### ✅ Recommended to Apply (4 items)
|
|
Items with clear improvement benefits.
|
|
|
|
1. `utils/format.ts:34` - Variable name clarification (`data` → `formattedUserData`)
|
|
- Rationale: Improved type inference, better readability, avoids conflicts with other data variables in scope
|
|
- Impact: Very low (variable rename only, 5 lines)
|
|
- Expected benefit: Increased code comprehension, easier maintenance
|
|
- Recommendation: ✅ Apply
|
|
|
|
2. `api/response.ts:67` - Error handling improvement
|
|
- Current: try-catch만 있고 에러 로깅 없음
|
|
- Suggestion: logger.error() 추가
|
|
- Rationale: 프로덕션 디버깅 시 에러 추적 불가능
|
|
- Impact: 낮음 (1줄 추가)
|
|
- Expected benefit: 문제 발생 시 빠른 원인 파악
|
|
- recommended: ✅ applied / apply
|
|
|
|
3. `models/user.ts:123` - Remove type assertion
|
|
- Current: `as User` 강제 캐스팅
|
|
- Suggestion: 타입 가드 함수 사용
|
|
- Rationale: 런타임 타입 불일치 위험
|
|
- Impact: 중간 (타입 가드 함수 추가 필요, 10줄)
|
|
- Expected benefit: 타입 안정성 증가
|
|
- recommended: ✅ applied / apply
|
|
|
|
4. `services/notification.ts:45` - Extract magic number to constant
|
|
- Current: `setTimeout(() => ..., 5000)`
|
|
- Suggestion: `const RETRY_DELAY_MS = 5000`
|
|
- Rationale: 의미 명확화, 재사용 가능
|
|
- Impact: 매우 낮음 (상수 선언 1줄)
|
|
- Expected benefit: 코드 가독성, 설정 변경 용이
|
|
- recommended: ✅ applied / apply
|
|
|
|
### 🔄 선택 applied / apply (9items)
|
|
프로젝트 스타일이나 향후 확장성에 따라 결정할 사항들입니다.
|
|
|
|
5. `components/Button.tsx:89` - Function extraction suggestion
|
|
- Current: 25줄 단일 함수
|
|
- Suggestion: 3개 함수로 분리 (렌더링/이벤트/스타일)
|
|
- Assessment: 현재도 충분히 읽기 쉬움, 분리 시 오버헤드 발생
|
|
- recommended: 🔄 향후 기능 추가 시 고려 (현재는 Unnecessary)
|
|
|
|
6. `hooks/useAuth.ts:34` - Extract custom hook
|
|
- Current: 동일 패턴 3곳에서 반복
|
|
- Suggestion: useAuthCheck 훅으로 추출
|
|
- Assessment: 추상화 이득 vs 복잡도 증가 trade-off
|
|
- recommended: 🔄 4개 이상 반복 시 고려
|
|
|
|
7. `api/middleware.ts:78` - Detailed error messages
|
|
- Current: "Invalid request"
|
|
- Suggestion: "Invalid request: missing required field 'email'"
|
|
- Assessment: 보안과 사용성 사이 균형 문제
|
|
- recommended: 🔄 프로젝트 정책에 따라 결정
|
|
|
|
[... 더 많은 선택 applied / apply 항목]
|
|
|
|
### ❌ Unnecessary (3items)
|
|
applied / apply하지 않는 것이 더 좋은 항목들입니다.
|
|
|
|
14. `config/db.ts:12` - Add comments suggestion
|
|
- Suggestion: 각 설정값에 주석 설명 추가
|
|
- Assessment: 코드가 충분히 자명하며, Excessive comments은 유지보수 부담
|
|
- Rationale:
|
|
* 설정명이 명확 (`maxConnections`, `timeoutMs`)
|
|
* 타입과 기본값이 문서화 역할
|
|
* 주석은 *왜*를 설명해야 하는데 *무엇*을 반복
|
|
- recommended: ❌ Unnecessary
|
|
|
|
15. `utils/array.ts:56` - Lodash 사용 제안
|
|
- Current: 네이티브 map/filter 체이닝
|
|
- Suggestion: Lodash chain 사용
|
|
- Assessment: Unnecessary dependency 추가
|
|
- Rationale:
|
|
* 네이티브 메서드로 충분히 명확
|
|
* 번들 사이즈 증가 (수십 KB)
|
|
* 팀원 모두 네이티브 메서드에 익숙
|
|
- recommended: ❌ Unnecessary
|
|
|
|
16. `tests/user.test.ts:123` - Add test cases 제안
|
|
- Suggestion: 엣지 케이스 10개 추가
|
|
- Assessment: 과도한 테스트, 실용성 낮음
|
|
- Rationale:
|
|
* 제안된 케이스들이 실제 발생 가능성 극히 낮음
|
|
* 테스트 유지보수 비용 증가
|
|
* 핵심 시나리오는 이미 커버
|
|
- recommended: ❌ Unnecessary
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## processing 방안 제안
|
|
|
|
**즉시 applied / apply recommended:** CRITICAL 2items + MAJOR 5items + MINOR applied / applyrecommended 4items = 11items
|
|
**Consider in future:** MINOR 선택applied / apply 9items
|
|
**applied / apply 안 함:** MINOR Unnecessary 3items
|
|
|
|
How would you like to proceed?
|
|
- [1] recommended사항 모두 applied / apply (11items) - 추천
|
|
- [2] CRITICAL/MAJOR만 applied / apply (7items)
|
|
- [3] 개별 선택 (원하는 항목만 선택)
|
|
- [4] 선택 applied / apply 항목도 함께 review
|
|
- [5] 전체 중단
|
|
|
|
> [사용자 선택 대기]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Step 2.4 - Individual Selection for MINOR (Option 3 or 4):**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
> 3
|
|
|
|
개별 선택 모드로 진행하겠습니다.
|
|
먼저 CRITICAL/MAJOR부터 확인합니다. (강력 recommended)
|
|
|
|
[CRITICAL/MAJOR 7items 개별 확인... 위의 2.2 과정]
|
|
|
|
이제 MINOR applied / apply recommended 항목을 확인하시겠습니까? [Y/n]
|
|
> Y
|
|
|
|
[recommended 1/4] `utils/format.ts:34` - 변수명 명확화
|
|
|
|
현재 코드:
|
|
```typescript
|
|
function formatUser(raw: any) {
|
|
const data = {
|
|
name: raw.userName,
|
|
email: raw.userEmail
|
|
};
|
|
return data;
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
제안 변경:
|
|
```typescript
|
|
function formatUser(raw: any) {
|
|
const formattedUserData = {
|
|
name: raw.userName,
|
|
email: raw.userEmail
|
|
};
|
|
return formattedUserData;
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**analysis / analyzing:**
|
|
- ✅ 가독성 향상 확실
|
|
- ✅ 영향 범위 최소 (5줄)
|
|
- ✅ 부작용 없음
|
|
- ✅ 다른 data 변수와 구분 명확
|
|
|
|
applied / apply하시겠습니까? [Y/n/skip/detail]
|
|
> Y
|
|
|
|
✅ applied / apply 목록에 추가
|
|
|
|
[recommended 2/4] `api/response.ts:67` - Error handling improvement
|
|
[...]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Step 2.5 - Final Confirmation:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
## 최종 processing 요약
|
|
|
|
✅ applied / apply 예정: 11items
|
|
- CRITICAL: 2items
|
|
* auth/login.ts:45 - SQL Injection 수정
|
|
* data/sync.ts:89 - 트랜잭션 추가
|
|
- MAJOR: 5items
|
|
* api/users.ts:123 - N+1 쿼리 해결
|
|
* cache/redis.ts:56 - 메모리 누수 수정
|
|
* [...3items 더]
|
|
- MINOR (applied / apply recommended): 4items
|
|
* utils/format.ts:34 - 변수명 명확화
|
|
* api/response.ts:67 - 에러 로깅 추가
|
|
* models/user.ts:123 - 타입 가드 사용
|
|
* services/notification.ts:45 - Extract magic number to constant
|
|
|
|
🔄 skipped - Consider in future: 9items
|
|
- components/Button.tsx:89 - 함수 분리 (현재 복잡도 적정)
|
|
- hooks/useAuth.ts:34 - 커스텀 훅 (반복 3회, 4회부터 고려)
|
|
- [...7items 더]
|
|
|
|
❌ skipped - Unnecessary: 3items
|
|
- config/db.ts:12 - Excessive comments (코드가 자명)
|
|
- utils/array.ts:56 - Unnecessary dependency 추가
|
|
- tests/user.test.ts:123 - 과도한 엣지 케이스
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Proceed as planned?
|
|
- [1] 예, 진행 (11items applied / apply)
|
|
- [2] review 내용 수정 (추가/제거)
|
|
- [3] 전체 중단
|
|
|
|
> [사용자 선택 대기]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Phase 3: Application & Completion (Automatic with Verification)
|
|
|
|
**Step 3.1 - Apply Changes:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
changes을 applied / apply하겠습니다.
|
|
|
|
[1/11] CRITICAL: auth/login.ts:45 - SQL Injection 수정
|
|
✅ complete / completed
|
|
|
|
[2/11] CRITICAL: data/sync.ts:89 - 트랜잭션 추가
|
|
✅ complete / completed
|
|
|
|
[3/11] MAJOR: api/users.ts:123 - N+1 쿼리 해결
|
|
✅ complete / completed
|
|
|
|
[...]
|
|
|
|
[11/11] MINOR: services/notification.ts:45 - 상수화
|
|
✅ complete / completed
|
|
|
|
✅ 모든 changes applied / apply complete / completed (11/11)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Step 3.2 - Commit & Push:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
changes을 commit하고 push합니다.
|
|
|
|
commit 메시지: "fix: Apply CodeRabbit feedback
|
|
|
|
- CRITICAL: SQL injection, transaction safety
|
|
- MAJOR: N+1 queries, memory leaks, resource handling
|
|
- MINOR: Code quality improvements
|
|
|
|
Applied 11 items (2 critical, 5 major, 4 minor recommended)"
|
|
|
|
[실행] git add .
|
|
✅ Staged 6 files
|
|
|
|
[실행] git commit -m "..."
|
|
✅ Commit created: a1b2c3d
|
|
|
|
[실행] git push
|
|
✅ Pushed to origin/coderabbit-review-skill
|
|
|
|
모든 changes이 commit되고 push되었습니다.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Step 3.3 - Generate & Review PR Comment:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
PR에 post할 코멘트를 작성했습니다.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
@coderabbitai resolve
|
|
|
|
## CodeRabbit 피드백 processing complete / completed
|
|
|
|
### applied / apply complete / completed (11items)
|
|
|
|
**CRITICAL (2items)**
|
|
- `auth/login.ts:45` - SQL Injection 취약점 수정 (Prepared statement applied / apply)
|
|
- `data/sync.ts:89` - 트랜잭션 추가로 데이터 손실 위험 제거
|
|
|
|
**MAJOR (5items)**
|
|
- `api/users.ts:123` - N+1 쿼리 해결 (eager loading으로 101→1 쿼리 감소)
|
|
- `cache/redis.ts:56` - 메모리 누수 수정 (finally 블록 추가)
|
|
- `services/payment.ts:234` - 결제 실패 시 롤백 로직 추가
|
|
- `api/search.ts:89` - 인덱스 누락 경고 해결 (복합 인덱스 추가)
|
|
- `workers/job.ts:156` - 무한 루프 위험 제거 (최대 재시도 횟수 설정)
|
|
|
|
**MINOR - applied / apply recommended (4items)**
|
|
- `utils/format.ts:34` - 변수명 명확화 (data → formattedUserData)
|
|
- `api/response.ts:67` - 에러 로깅 추가
|
|
- `models/user.ts:123` - 타입 가드 사용으로 안정성 향상
|
|
- `services/notification.ts:45` - Extract magic number to constant
|
|
|
|
### review complete / completed - applied / apply 안 함 (12items)
|
|
|
|
**Consider in future 항목 (9items)**
|
|
- `components/Button.tsx:89` - Function extraction suggestion (현재 복잡도 적정)
|
|
- `hooks/useAuth.ts:34` - Extract custom hook (반복 3회, 4회부터 고려)
|
|
- `api/middleware.ts:78` - Detailed error messages (보안 정책 review 필요)
|
|
- `utils/validator.ts:45` - 정규식 성능 최적화 (현재 사용량에서 영향 미미)
|
|
- `components/Modal.tsx:123` - 접근성 속성 추가 (다음 스프린트 일괄 applied / apply 예정)
|
|
- `services/cache.ts:67` - 캐시 무효화 전략 개선 (아키텍처 논의 후 결정)
|
|
- `api/pagination.ts:34` - 커서 기반 페이지네이션 (현재 offset 방식 충분)
|
|
- `tests/integration/api.test.ts:89` - 테스트 격리 개선 (리팩토링 시 함께 진행)
|
|
- `docs/api.md:12` - API 문서 업데이트 (다음 릴리스 전 일괄 작업)
|
|
|
|
**Unnecessary (3items)**
|
|
- `config/db.ts:12` - Excessive comments 추가 (코드가 충분히 자명함)
|
|
- `utils/array.ts:56` - Lodash 사용 제안 (Unnecessary dependency, 네이티브로 충분)
|
|
- `tests/user.test.ts:123` - 극단적 엣지 케이스 테스트 (실용성 낮음)
|
|
|
|
### Statistics
|
|
- Total 23items review
|
|
- applied / apply: 11items (CRITICAL 2 + MAJOR 5 + MINOR 4)
|
|
- Consider in future: 9items
|
|
- Unnecessary: 3items
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
이 코멘트를 PR에 post하시겠습니까?
|
|
- [1] 예, post
|
|
- [2] 내용 수정
|
|
- [3] post 안 함 (recommended하지 않음)
|
|
|
|
> [사용자 선택 대기]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Step 3.4 - Edit Mode (Option 2):**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
> 2
|
|
|
|
코멘트를 어떻게 수정하시겠습니까?
|
|
- [1] applied / apply 항목 설명 추가/수정
|
|
- [2] items너뛴 항목 설명 추가/수정
|
|
- [3] 직접 편집 (전체 텍스트)
|
|
- [4] 취소하고 그대로 post
|
|
|
|
> 1
|
|
|
|
applied / apply 항목 중 수정할 항목의 번호나 파일명을 입력하세요:
|
|
(예: "1", "auth/login.ts:45", 또는 "done"으로 complete / completed)
|
|
|
|
> api/users.ts:123
|
|
|
|
현재 설명:
|
|
"N+1 쿼리 해결 (eager loading으로 101→1 쿼리 감소)"
|
|
|
|
새 설명을 입력하세요: (빈 줄 입력 시 현재 유지)
|
|
> N+1 쿼리 해결 (includes를 사용한 eager loading으로 성능 개선)
|
|
|
|
✅ 업데이트 complete / completed
|
|
|
|
다음 항목? (번호/파일명 또는 "done")
|
|
> done
|
|
|
|
수정된 코멘트를 확인하시겠습니까? [Y/n]
|
|
> Y
|
|
|
|
[수정된 코멘트 전체 다시 표시]
|
|
|
|
post하시겠습니까? [Y/n/edit]
|
|
> Y
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Step 3.5 - Post & Verify:**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
PR 코멘트를 post하고 검증합니다.
|
|
|
|
[실행] gh pr comment 123 --body "..."
|
|
✅ 코멘트 post 성공
|
|
|
|
[대기] GitHub API 동기화 중... (2초)
|
|
|
|
[검증 1/3] 최신 코멘트 조회 중...
|
|
✅ 코멘트 확인
|
|
|
|
[검증 2/3] @coderabbitai resolve 태그 존재 확인...
|
|
✅ 태그 확인
|
|
|
|
[검증 3/3] 코멘트 내용 무결성 확인...
|
|
✅ 모든 섹션 포함 확인
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
✅ 모든 단계 complete / completed! 🎉
|
|
|
|
## 최종 요약
|
|
- ✅ 11items 코드 변경 applied / apply
|
|
- ✅ changes commit 및 push (a1b2c3d)
|
|
- ✅ PR 코멘트 post 및 검증
|
|
- ✅ CodeRabbit 해결 마킹 complete / completed
|
|
|
|
processing 내용:
|
|
- CRITICAL: 2items (보안 취약점, 데이터 손실 위험 해결)
|
|
- MAJOR: 5items (성능 및 중요 버그 수정)
|
|
- MINOR: 4items (코드 품질 개선)
|
|
|
|
Consider in future 항목 9items은 적절한 시점에 review하시면 됩니다.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## The Iron Law: PR Comment is MANDATORY
|
|
|
|
**PR comment with @coderabbitai resolve is NOT optional.**
|
|
|
|
### Triple Verification System
|
|
|
|
1. **Create Dedicated TodoWrite Item:**
|
|
```
|
|
- [ ] Post @coderabbitai resolve comment to PR (MANDATORY)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
2. **Post Comment:**
|
|
```bash
|
|
gh pr comment "$PR_NUMBER" --body "$(cat <<'COMMENT_EOF'
|
|
@coderabbitai resolve
|
|
|
|
## CodeRabbit 피드백 processing complete / completed
|
|
[내용...]
|
|
COMMENT_EOF
|
|
)"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
3. **Immediate Verification (3 Checks):**
|
|
```bash
|
|
# Check 1: Command succeeded
|
|
if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
|
|
echo "❌ CRITICAL: Comment post failed"
|
|
# Retry logic
|
|
fi
|
|
|
|
# Wait for API sync
|
|
sleep 2
|
|
|
|
# Check 2: Comment exists
|
|
LAST_COMMENT=$(gh pr view "$PR_NUMBER" --json comments --jq '.comments[-1].body')
|
|
|
|
# Check 3: Contains resolve tag
|
|
if ! echo "$LAST_COMMENT" | grep -q "@coderabbitai resolve"; then
|
|
echo "❌ CRITICAL: PR comment missing @coderabbitai resolve tag"
|
|
# Retry logic
|
|
else
|
|
echo "✅ VERIFIED: PR comment posted with @coderabbitai resolve"
|
|
fi
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
4. **Retry Logic:**
|
|
```bash
|
|
post_pr_comment_with_verification() {
|
|
local pr_number=$1
|
|
local comment_body=$2
|
|
local max_attempts=3
|
|
local attempt=1
|
|
|
|
while [ $attempt -le $max_attempts ]; do
|
|
echo "[Attempt $attempt/$max_attempts] Posting PR comment..."
|
|
|
|
if gh pr comment "$pr_number" --body "$comment_body"; then
|
|
sleep 2
|
|
|
|
local last_comment=$(gh pr view "$pr_number" --json comments --jq '.comments[-1].body')
|
|
if echo "$last_comment" | grep -q "@coderabbitai resolve"; then
|
|
echo "✅ SUCCESS: PR comment verified"
|
|
return 0
|
|
fi
|
|
fi
|
|
|
|
echo "⚠️ Attempt $attempt failed, retrying..."
|
|
((attempt++))
|
|
sleep 3
|
|
done
|
|
|
|
echo "❌ CRITICAL FAILURE: Failed after $max_attempts attempts"
|
|
return 1
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Why This Matters
|
|
|
|
- CodeRabbit tracks resolution through these comments
|
|
- Without comment, feedback thread stays open indefinitely
|
|
- Team members can't see what was addressed
|
|
- Automated workflows depend on resolution markers
|
|
- GitHub PR timeline needs closure for audit trail
|
|
|
|
### Success Checklist
|
|
|
|
Before marking workflow complete, verify ALL:
|
|
- [ ] `gh pr comment` command executed
|
|
- [ ] Command exit code = 0
|
|
- [ ] Waited 2 seconds for API sync
|
|
- [ ] Latest PR comment retrieved successfully
|
|
- [ ] Comment contains "@coderabbitai resolve"
|
|
- [ ] Comment contains summary of applied changes
|
|
- [ ] Comment contains summary of skipped items
|
|
- [ ] TodoWrite item marked completed
|
|
- [ ] Output: "✅ VERIFIED: PR comment posted"
|
|
|
|
**No shortcuts. No assumptions. Verify every time.**
|
|
|
|
## Red Flags - Signs You're Skipping Verification
|
|
|
|
**STOP immediately if you think:**
|
|
- "I'll just post the comment, verification is overkill"
|
|
- "The command succeeded, that's enough"
|
|
- "I'll check manually later"
|
|
- "User can verify in the PR"
|
|
- "Let me mark this todo as done..."
|
|
|
|
**ALL OF THESE ARE FAILURES - VERIFY THE COMMENT**
|
|
|
|
## Common Mistakes
|
|
|
|
### ❌ Skipping Pagination
|
|
**Problem:** Missing comments when PR has 100+ comments
|
|
**Fix:** Use GraphQL/REST pagination to collect up to 200 comments
|
|
|
|
### ❌ Not Providing Rationale
|
|
**Problem:** User doesn't understand why suggestions are categorized as recommended/optional/unnecessary
|
|
**Fix:** Include 1-2 line rationale for each MINOR item classification
|
|
|
|
### ❌ Skipping PR Comment Verification
|
|
**Problem:** Assuming comment was posted without verification
|
|
**Fix:** Always run triple-verification (command success + API sync + tag check)
|
|
|
|
### ❌ Auto-Applying Without Discussion
|
|
**Problem:** Applying changes user didn't explicitly approve
|
|
**Fix:** Present summary, get user decision, then apply only agreed items
|
|
|
|
### ❌ Incomplete Error Recovery
|
|
**Problem:** Stopping workflow when single item fails
|
|
**Fix:** Skip failed item with explanation, continue with others, complete Phase 3
|
|
|
|
## Success Criteria
|
|
|
|
- ✅ Collected all unresolved comments (up to 200 with pagination)
|
|
- ✅ Classified each item by severity (CRITICAL/MAJOR/MINOR)
|
|
- ✅ Discussed CRITICAL/MAJOR items with user
|
|
- ✅ Analyzed MINOR items with clear rationale
|
|
- ✅ Applied only user-approved changes
|
|
- ✅ Committed and pushed all changes
|
|
- ✅ Posted PR comment with @coderabbitai resolve
|
|
- ✅ Verified comment posting with triple-check system
|
|
- ✅ All TodoWrite items marked completed
|
|
|
|
## Real-World Impact
|
|
|
|
**Before this skill:**
|
|
- Manual classification of 20+ CodeRabbit comments took 15+ minutes
|
|
- Unclear why certain suggestions weren't applied
|
|
- Risk of missing important items due to pagination limits
|
|
- Inconsistent PR comment posting
|
|
- No verification that CodeRabbit received resolution
|
|
|
|
**After this skill:**
|
|
- Interactive guided review in 5-7 minutes
|
|
- Clear rationale for each classification decision
|
|
- Complete coverage up to 200 comments with pagination
|
|
- Guaranteed PR comment posting with triple verification
|
|
- User feels confident about decisions with analysis support
|