Le mar. 27 oct. 2026 à 21:16, Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On 27/10/26 at 12:03 +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Now I looked at an assistant report more closely and I did not see a > hint > > on which model was used for the review[6]. > > This doesn't answer your question, but FWIW, it looks like the git > repository for the review tool is > https://salsa.debian.org/dfsg-team/dfsg-omp-review/ This tool is somewhat installable, provided one manages to build it. Let's say I managed to build it, now I can get the same review, but done with another LLM than the one used by DFSG. The result is comparable (though the wording is somewhat different). I didn't have to wait, and got the result several minutes later. BTW omp seems an odd, opinionated choice, to me. A more generic tool would be better. > > > And the prompt used for reviews is > > https://salsa.debian.org/dfsg-team/dfsg-omp-review/-/blob/main/dfsg-review.md?ref_type=heads > ... which is an interesting read! > > Lucas > >
