steve/pansy
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 2 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

CLAUDE.md: one Gadfly sweep, not a re-review loop
Build image / build-and-push (push) Successful in 18s
Details

Browse Source 
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) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01H3zbym8Doka2d7D48maSgZ
This commit is contained in:
steve
2026-07-21 22:56:01 -04:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 4.8
parent a13acedd90
commit 84f249a774
1 changed files with 12 additions and 14 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
CLAUDE.md
+12 -14
View File
@@ -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 A push to `main` builds the image and deploys to Komodo; the live instance at
`pansy.orgrimmar.dudenhoeffer.casa` updates a few minutes later. `pansy.orgrimmar.dudenhoeffer.casa` updates a few minutes later.
**Gadfly reviews the PR as opened, not as merged.** The workflow triggers on **One sweep, not a loop.** Take Gadfly's *initial* review, fix what's real, and
`opened`/`reopened`/`ready_for_review` — deliberately *not* `synchronize` — so merge once the build is green. Do NOT re-trigger Gadfly on the fix commits and
every commit you push afterwards, including the ones you push in response to wait for it again — a re-review-per-fix loop burns ~10 min a pass and drags a
Gadfly itself, is unreviewed unless you ask. Once you've stopped pushing and small PR out for an hour (Steve's explicit call, 2026-07-22). The initial review
before you merge, comment **`@gadfly review`** on the PR to re-trigger it. The is the check; your own build/test/judgment covers the fixes. Gadfly is advisory
phrase is required, and this is not hypothetical: on #76 the follow-up commit and never blocks merge, so green build + fixes applied is enough.
was the one that contained a real bug.
**A skipped Gadfly run reports success.** A comment without the trigger phrase (Mechanics, if you ever *do* need a manual re-run: the workflow triggers on
still starts the workflow, which logs `comment does not contain trigger phrase` `opened`/`reopened`/`ready_for_review`, not `synchronize`, so pushes don't
and exits green in ~2 seconds. So "the pipeline is green" does NOT mean "this re-review; a `@gadfly review` comment does. A comment without that exact phrase
was reviewed". Confirm a re-review actually ran by its **duration** — a real still runs and exits green in ~2s — a skip that looks like a pass, so judge a
pass takes ~10 minutes, a skip takes 2 seconds. Don't look for a new consensus real review by its ~10-min duration, not its status. Gadfly edits its consensus
comment: Gadfly EDITS its existing status-board and consensus comments in place, comment in place, so `updated_at` moves but `created_at` doesn't.)
so their `created_at` stays at the first review and only `updated_at` moves.
Workflow- and config-only changes (CI, this file, docs) go straight to `main` Workflow- and config-only changes (CI, this file, docs) go straight to `main`
without the PR dance. without the PR dance.