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 f2c446c5b08 Add self-iteration gate to review-pr skill (#38784)
f2c446c5b08 is described below
commit f2c446c5b08b415be64e5ada89e488e9dbca6832
Author: Liang Zhang <[email protected]>
AuthorDate: Wed Jun 3 13:57:11 2026 +0800
Add self-iteration gate to review-pr skill (#38784)
Require review-pr to run internal self-review passes before final output
until no new actionable findings are discovered. Keep intermediate rounds
hidden and emit one consolidated review with exactly one merge verdict.
---
.codex/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/.codex/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md b/.codex/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md
index 0f63a08f3d1..f0eb92a884d 100644
--- a/.codex/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md
+++ b/.codex/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ description: >-
assess side effects and regression risks, and determine whether it can be
safely merged.
If not mergeable, produce committer-tone change request suggestions.
Supports targeted comparison across GitHub-visible review rounds when prior
PR comments or review threads exist.
+ Before final output, internally self-iterate the review until no new
actionable findings are discovered.
---
# Review PR
@@ -54,12 +55,14 @@ description: >-
Do not interpret the trigger signals above as a complete list. If this
blast-radius scan is missing, bias to `Not Mergeable`.
13. If local verification is used to support mergeability and the command is
module-scoped, include `-am` by default unless you can prove all dependent
modules were built from the same latest PR head.
Do not treat a scoped run without dependent modules as conclusive evidence
for `Mergeable`.
-14. Before outputting `Mergeable`, perform one explicit adversarial pass that
assumes the PR is unsafe and actively searches for:
+14. Before any final output, complete the `Self-Iteration Gate` and stop only
after the latest internal review pass finds no new actionable issues.
+ Do not expose intermediate review rounds; output one consolidated review
with exactly one `Merge Verdict`.
+15. During the self-iteration loop, include at least one explicit adversarial
pass that assumes the PR is unsafe and actively searches for:
- one cross-dialect or adjacent-feature regression path,
- one config-disabled or feature-flag-off path,
- one original symptom path that is only partially covered by tests.
If any of these remain unresolved, set `Merge Verdict: Not Mergeable`.
-15. If a PR changes SQL parser behavior, grammar, visitor logic, supported SQL
cases, or parser tests for a dialect,
+16. If a PR changes SQL parser behavior, grammar, visitor logic, supported SQL
cases, or parser tests for a dialect,
you must complete both syntax-validity review and dialect-family impact
review before concluding:
- Every SQL syntax added, changed, accepted, rejected, or suggested in the
review must be backed by the target database's official documentation for the
exact database family and relevant version.
- This applies both to the PR's changed SQL syntax and to any SQL syntax
examples or recommendations you propose in review comments.
@@ -70,12 +73,12 @@ description: >-
- If official documentation support is missing, ambiguous, or contradicts
the PR behavior, bias to `Merge Verdict: Not Mergeable`.
- If any related dialect remains unresolved, or the review skips the
family scan, bias to `Merge Verdict: Not Mergeable`.
- Do not recommend unsupported or undocumented SQL syntax in review
feedback.
-16. If a method reachable from the Proxy or JDBC DML/DQL high-frequency SQL
execution path uses `ConcurrentHashMap#computeIfAbsent`,
+17. If a method reachable from the Proxy or JDBC DML/DQL high-frequency SQL
execution path uses `ConcurrentHashMap#computeIfAbsent`,
require a preceding `get` lookup and call `computeIfAbsent` only when the
value is missing, to avoid the JDK 8 implementation bottleneck.
If this pattern is absent and the path is high-frequency, bias to `Merge
Verdict: Not Mergeable`.
-17. Do not use GitHub Actions, CI status, or check-run completion as part of
the merge verdict unless explicitly requested by the user.
-18. Use repository-declared formatting/style gates as the formatting
authority; do not introduce extra formatting blockers outside those gates by
default.
-19. Treat GitHub PR metadata and `/pulls/{number}/files` as the authoritative
scope boundary.
+18. Do not use GitHub Actions, CI status, or check-run completion as part of
the merge verdict unless explicitly requested by the user.
+19. Use repository-declared formatting/style gates as the formatting
authority; do not introduce extra formatting blockers outside those gates by
default.
+20. Treat GitHub PR metadata and `/pulls/{number}/files` as the authoritative
scope boundary.
Before reporting unrelated changes or making any scope-based finding,
verify that the local diff file list matches GitHub's file list.
If the lists differ, stop the review, refresh the PR refs, and resolve the
diff-boundary mismatch before drawing conclusions.
@@ -215,8 +218,30 @@ CI/check-run review is not part of this workflow unless
explicitly requested; do
8. Version baseline control:
- Base conclusion only on PR latest code version
- If new commits are added, current conclusion becomes invalid and must be
re-reviewed on latest version
-9. Merge decision: output `Merge Verdict`.
-10. Generate feedback: follow the output template below.
+9. Self-iteration gate: repeat internal review passes until the latest pass
finds no new actionable findings.
+10. Merge decision: output `Merge Verdict`.
+11. Generate feedback: follow the output template below.
+
+## Self-Iteration Gate
+
+Before producing the final review output, run an internal self-review loop on
the latest PR version:
+
+1. Build the current candidate findings from the completed review pass.
+2. Ask explicitly:
+ "If I review this same latest PR again from a fresh critical perspective,
can I find any new actionable issue, unresolved risk, missing evidence, or
scope problem not already captured?"
+3. Re-run the review against the authoritative PR scope, focusing on:
+ - Missed root-cause gaps.
+ - Missed side effects or regression paths.
+ - Missed test adequacy gaps.
+ - Missed cross-dialect, feature-disabled, fallback, or boundary cases.
+ - Missed unrelated substantive changes.
+ - Missed output-template or evidence gaps.
+4. If the self-review finds any new actionable issue, add it to the candidate
findings, deduplicate it against existing findings,
+ update the merge verdict and next steps if needed, and repeat the loop.
+5. Do not treat restatements, optional polish, speculative risks outside the
PR scope, or already captured issues as new actionable findings.
+6. Stop only when the latest self-review pass finds no new actionable issues
compared with the accumulated candidate findings.
+7. Do not expose intermediate review rounds, draft verdicts, or self-review
transcripts to the user.
+8. Produce one consolidated final review with exactly one `Merge Verdict`.
## Root-Cause Validation Checklist (Must Answer Each)
@@ -301,6 +326,7 @@ When GitHub-visible previous-round feedback exists, perform
incremental comparis
- Keep `Merge Verdict: ...` as a bold bullet near the top, and output exactly
one verdict line.
- Keep stable review labels in English, such as `Merge Verdict`, `Reviewed
Scope`, `Not Reviewed Scope`, and `Need Expert Review`,
so they remain searchable and consistent.
+- Do not include internal self-iteration rounds, draft verdicts, or
self-review transcripts in the GitHub-facing review body.
- Use short unordered bullets under each heading; use bold inline labels such
as `Symptom:`, `Risk:`, and `Action:` for issue details.
- Use repo-relative paths with line numbers, for example
`infra/.../Foo.java:123`; do not use local absolute file paths in GitHub-facing
review text.
- Prefer bullets over tables. Use tables only for compact status summaries
that remain readable in GitHub's narrow review pane.
