This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
terrymanu pushed a commit to branch master
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/shardingsphere.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
new 64a82085597 Unify review-pr assessments across review modes (#39278)
64a82085597 is described below
commit 64a8208559725f31e746941c9631e91cdaafb5ea
Author: Liang Zhang <[email protected]>
AuthorDate: Thu Jul 30 17:21:38 2026 +0800
Unify review-pr assessments across review modes (#39278)
- introduce a mode-independent canonical assessment
- align public evidence for local and formal reviews
- preserve code-correctness findings across CI and mergeability focuses
---
.codex/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md | 65 +++++++++++++++++-----
.../skills/review-pr/references/evidence-access.md | 19 +++++--
2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/.codex/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md b/.codex/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md
index fc98a7a89ff..6aceef3c25e 100644
--- a/.codex/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md
+++ b/.codex/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md
@@ -42,6 +42,28 @@ may still be required from code, official specifications,
public reproductions,
or local verification. If such a decisive fact is unavailable, identify that
fact—not CI—as the incomplete reason.
+## Canonical Assessment
+
+Resolve one review basis before discovery: the effective candidate, applicable
+requirements, selected review focus, and admissible evidence. Run the Review
+Workflow against that basis and produce one mode-independent assessment:
+confirmed findings consolidated by fix boundary, needs-discussion conditions,
+incomplete-evidence gaps, and Completion Gate state.
+
+Output mode must not affect candidate discovery, proof, classification,
+coverage, or convergence. Never use a previous Local or Formal result as
+evidence or as a conclusion to match. Treat previous public findings only as
+hypotheses whose cited facts must be reverified.
+
+Two reviews with the same effective candidate, requirements, focus, and
+evidence must produce the same canonical assessment. Local and Formal modes may
+resolve different candidates and render different status labels, but they must
+not apply different code-correctness judgment. A changed focus, requirement,
+or external fact changes the review basis and may legitimately change the
+assessment. Mergeability or CI evidence may add external-state findings or
+gaps, but it must not change code-correctness findings derived from an
otherwise
+unchanged basis.
+
## Core Contracts
1. Review only. Do not modify PR code, post comments, submit reviews, resolve
@@ -80,6 +102,11 @@ For formal reviews:
- Prefer PR facts, same-repository issues, code and tests, ShardingSphere
documentation and conventions, then external official specifications.
+For Local Candidate Preflight targeting an existing PR, resolve the same public
+requirements and code-correctness evidence before applying the authorized local
+delta. Record any explicit local requirement that extends the public PR scope
+as a distinct part of the review basis.
+
For discussion replies, establish the latest public head, complete thread
context, relevant earlier review, and affected production or test paths. Fetch
the complete file list when scope is disputed or the reply changes an overall
@@ -141,10 +168,15 @@ baselines, also read
## Review Workflow
-1. Select output mode and review focus.
-2. Establish the authoritative latest-head scope and linked requirements.
+Apply this workflow to the canonical review basis without using output mode or
+a previous result to influence the assessment:
+
+1. Establish the authoritative effective-candidate scope and applicable
+ requirements.
+2. Confirm the selected review focus and admissible evidence.
3. Build behavior clusters and complete the mandatory risk triage.
-4. Discover candidates across the complete scope before choosing a verdict.
+4. Discover candidates across the complete scope before classifying the
+ assessment.
Use three distinct lenses:
- `Root Cause and Behavior`: intended fix, changed decisions, boundaries,
disabled paths, adjacent cases, and old-scenario regression.
@@ -159,7 +191,8 @@ baselines, also read
evidence or coverage gap that could still change the blocker set.
7. Review the latest delta and run a full-scope convergence pass after the most
recent candidate change. If it finds a new independent candidate, return to
- step 5 and repeat. Select the verdict only after the Completion Gate passes.
+ step 5 and repeat. Freeze the canonical assessment only after the Completion
+ Gate evaluation, then map it to the selected mode's status.
If the scope cannot be reviewed honestly, return the mode-appropriate
incomplete
result or request a split. Do not produce a complete verdict from a partial
@@ -196,7 +229,8 @@ complete change-request set.
## Formal Decision Contract
-Apply this order to Formal Review only after the Completion Gate evaluation:
+Map the canonical assessment to Formal Review only after the Completion Gate
+evaluation:
1. If the gate fails, use `Review Incomplete`, even when some blockers are
already confirmed.
@@ -221,10 +255,13 @@ unclear.
- Review from the public PR merge-base through the working tree. Scope is the
union of GitHub files and the authorized local delta; exclude unrelated local
changes.
-- Apply Code Correctness Review, the same proof and completion gates, triggered
- high-risk criteria, and convergence loop.
-- Return exactly one status: `Local Preflight Result: Pass`, `Local Preflight
- Result: Changes Required`, or `Local Preflight Result: Incomplete`.
+- Apply Code Correctness Review through the canonical assessment, including the
+ same proof and completion gates, triggered high-risk criteria, and
+ convergence loop.
+- Map a failed Completion Gate or needs-discussion condition to `Local
Preflight
+ Result: Incomplete`, confirmed findings to `Local Preflight Result: Changes
+ Required`, and a complete assessment with neither to `Local Preflight Result:
+ Pass`.
- Keep this Skill review-only. The active implementation loop fixes safe
in-scope findings and reruns preflight; scope expansion, architecture
choices,
and high-risk actions return to their existing authorization gates.
@@ -277,9 +314,9 @@ For each blocking issue include:
Do not add patch-level changes after selecting Needs Discussion. Do not include
placeholder headings. In `### Coverage`, report the reviewed head,
authoritative
-files accounted for, behavior clusters, completed discovery lenses, unresolved
-gaps, and CI scope. In Code Correctness Review, state that the result is
-code-scope only and CI was not reviewed.
+requirements and files accounted for, behavior clusters, completed discovery
+lenses, unresolved gaps, and CI scope. In Code Correctness Review, state that
+the result is code-scope only and CI was not reviewed.
### PR Discussion Reply
@@ -290,7 +327,9 @@ evidence and minimum next action. Do not force a formal
verdict.
### Local Candidate Preflight
Return `### Local Preflight`, exactly one bold Local Preflight Result line,
-confirmed required findings when present, and `### Coverage`.
+confirmed required findings or needs-discussion conditions when present, and
+`### Coverage`. Identify the effective candidate, applicable requirements,
+review focus, and unresolved gaps in Coverage.
### Correction
diff --git a/.codex/skills/review-pr/references/evidence-access.md
b/.codex/skills/review-pr/references/evidence-access.md
index 430f1df6b94..2799acb34e4 100644
--- a/.codex/skills/review-pr/references/evidence-access.md
+++ b/.codex/skills/review-pr/references/evidence-access.md
@@ -17,8 +17,9 @@
# Evidence Access
-Read this reference when a formal review or PR discussion requires current
-GitHub facts, or when the selected review focus requires CI or Actions
evidence.
+Read this reference when a Formal Review, Local Candidate Preflight targeting
+an existing PR, or PR Discussion Reply requires current GitHub facts, or when
+the selected review focus requires CI or Actions evidence.
## Public Evidence Boundary
@@ -48,14 +49,22 @@ failure of one secondary endpoint does not make all GitHub
evidence unavailable.
Do not print or retain token values, redirect URLs, auth details, or raw large
responses.
-For formal reviews:
+For Formal Review and Local Candidate Preflight targeting an existing PR:
- Record the latest public head SHA, base ref and SHA, merge-base when local
Git
is used, and the authoritative changed-file list.
-- Compare the local triple-dot file list with GitHub `/pulls/{number}/files`
- when both are available.
+- Resolve the same linked public requirements and relevant public comments and
+ reviews for Code Correctness Review.
+- Compare the public-head triple-dot file list with GitHub
+ `/pulls/{number}/files` when both are available.
- Treat a mismatch or stale head as an incomplete scope, not as a PR blocker.
+For Local Candidate Preflight, apply the authorized local delta only after
+establishing that public context. Treat local implementation narratives and
+previous Local or Formal results as neither evidence nor conclusions to match.
+When an explicit local requirement extends the public PR scope, record it
+separately rather than presenting it as public evidence.
+
For discussion replies, record the latest public head and fetch the complete
thread, relevant prior review, and affected paths. Fetch the authoritative
changed-file list when scope is disputed or the reply changes a formal
