From 84f249a774e46c7ac1c132152bb77e3a8e22d4e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Steve Dudenhoeffer Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:56:01 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] CLAUDE.md: one Gadfly sweep, not a re-review loop MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Remove the "comment @gadfly review before merge" guidance — it contradicted the standing rule (take the initial review, fix, merge when green) and led to a multi-round re-review loop that dragged a small PR out for an hour. Keep the re-run mechanics as a parenthetical for the rare manual case. Steve's call, 2026-07-22. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01H3zbym8Doka2d7D48maSgZ --- CLAUDE.md | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/CLAUDE.md b/CLAUDE.md index 2e8bf9a..0b59a49 100644 --- a/CLAUDE.md +++ b/CLAUDE.md @@ -129,21 +129,19 @@ fix what's real → merge when the pipeline is green. Do not grade Gadfly findin A push to `main` builds the image and deploys to Komodo; the live instance at `pansy.orgrimmar.dudenhoeffer.casa` updates a few minutes later. -**Gadfly reviews the PR as opened, not as merged.** The workflow triggers on -`opened`/`reopened`/`ready_for_review` — deliberately *not* `synchronize` — so -every commit you push afterwards, including the ones you push in response to -Gadfly itself, is unreviewed unless you ask. Once you've stopped pushing and -before you merge, comment **`@gadfly review`** on the PR to re-trigger it. The -phrase is required, and this is not hypothetical: on #76 the follow-up commit -was the one that contained a real bug. +**One sweep, not a loop.** Take Gadfly's *initial* review, fix what's real, and +merge once the build is green. Do NOT re-trigger Gadfly on the fix commits and +wait for it again — a re-review-per-fix loop burns ~10 min a pass and drags a +small PR out for an hour (Steve's explicit call, 2026-07-22). The initial review +is the check; your own build/test/judgment covers the fixes. Gadfly is advisory +and never blocks merge, so green build + fixes applied is enough. -**A skipped Gadfly run reports success.** A comment without the trigger phrase -still starts the workflow, which logs `comment does not contain trigger phrase` -and exits green in ~2 seconds. So "the pipeline is green" does NOT mean "this -was reviewed". Confirm a re-review actually ran by its **duration** — a real -pass takes ~10 minutes, a skip takes 2 seconds. Don't look for a new consensus -comment: Gadfly EDITS its existing status-board and consensus comments in place, -so their `created_at` stays at the first review and only `updated_at` moves. +(Mechanics, if you ever *do* need a manual re-run: the workflow triggers on +`opened`/`reopened`/`ready_for_review`, not `synchronize`, so pushes don't +re-review; a `@gadfly review` comment does. A comment without that exact phrase +still runs and exits green in ~2s — a skip that looks like a pass, so judge a +real review by its ~10-min duration, not its status. Gadfly edits its consensus +comment in place, so `updated_at` moves but `created_at` doesn't.) Workflow- and config-only changes (CI, this file, docs) go straight to `main` without the PR dance.