mirror of
https://github.com/QwenLM/qwen-code.git
synced 2026-04-28 11:41:04 +00:00
5effbb696f
For PR reviews, fetch existing inline and general comments via gh api before launching agents. A summary of already-discussed issues is passed to agents so they don't re-report problems that humans or other tools have already flagged. Added to Exclusion Criteria: "Issues already discussed in existing PR comments." Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
220 lines
8.7 KiB
Markdown
220 lines
8.7 KiB
Markdown
# Code Review
|
|
|
|
> Review code changes for correctness, security, performance, and code quality using `/review`.
|
|
|
|
## Quick Start
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
# Review local uncommitted changes
|
|
/review
|
|
|
|
# Review a pull request (by number or URL)
|
|
/review 123
|
|
/review https://github.com/org/repo/pull/123
|
|
|
|
# Review and post inline comments on the PR
|
|
/review 123 --comment
|
|
|
|
# Review a specific file
|
|
/review src/utils/auth.ts
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If there are no uncommitted changes, `/review` will let you know and stop — no agents are launched.
|
|
|
|
## How It Works
|
|
|
|
The `/review` command runs a multi-stage pipeline:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Step 1: Determine scope (local diff / PR / file)
|
|
Step 1.1: Load project review rules
|
|
Step 1.5: Run deterministic analysis (linters, type checkers)
|
|
Step 2: 5 parallel review agents (correctness, quality, performance, undirected, build/test)
|
|
Step 2.5: Deduplicate → verify → aggregate findings
|
|
Step 2.6: Reverse audit — find issues all agents missed
|
|
Step 3: Present findings with verdict
|
|
Step 3.5: Offer autofix for fixable issues
|
|
Step 4: Post PR inline comments (if requested)
|
|
Step 4.5: Save report and incremental cache
|
|
Step 5: Restore environment
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Review Agents
|
|
|
|
| Agent | Focus |
|
|
| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Agent 1: Correctness & Security | Logic errors, null handling, race conditions, injection, XSS, SSRF |
|
|
| Agent 2: Code Quality | Style consistency, naming, duplication, dead code |
|
|
| Agent 3: Performance & Efficiency | N+1 queries, memory leaks, unnecessary re-renders, bundle size |
|
|
| Agent 4: Undirected Audit | Business logic, boundary interactions, hidden coupling |
|
|
| Agent 5: Build & Test | Runs build and test commands, reports failures |
|
|
|
|
All agents run in parallel. Each finding is independently verified by a separate verification agent to reduce false positives. After verification, a **reverse audit agent** reviews the diff with knowledge of all confirmed findings to catch issues that every other agent missed.
|
|
|
|
## Deterministic Analysis
|
|
|
|
Before the LLM agents run, `/review` automatically runs your project's existing linters and type checkers:
|
|
|
|
| Language | Tools detected |
|
|
| --------------------- | ---------------------------------------- |
|
|
| TypeScript/JavaScript | `tsc --noEmit`, `npm run lint`, `eslint` |
|
|
| Python | `ruff`, `mypy`, `flake8` |
|
|
| Rust | `cargo clippy` |
|
|
| Go | `go vet`, `golangci-lint` |
|
|
|
|
Deterministic findings are tagged with `[linter]` or `[typecheck]` and skip LLM verification — they are ground truth.
|
|
|
|
- **Errors** → Critical severity
|
|
- **Warnings** → Nice to have (terminal only, not posted as PR comments)
|
|
|
|
If a tool is not installed or times out, it is skipped with an informational note.
|
|
|
|
## Severity Levels
|
|
|
|
| Severity | Meaning | Posted as PR comment? |
|
|
| ---------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------- |
|
|
| **Critical** | Must fix before merging (bugs, security, data loss, build failures) | Yes (high-confidence only) |
|
|
| **Suggestion** | Recommended improvement | Yes (high-confidence only) |
|
|
| **Nice to have** | Optional optimization | No (terminal only) |
|
|
|
|
Low-confidence findings appear in a separate "Needs Human Review" section in the terminal and are never posted as PR comments.
|
|
|
|
## Autofix
|
|
|
|
After presenting findings, `/review` offers to auto-apply fixes for Critical and Suggestion findings that have clear solutions:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Found 3 issues with auto-fixable suggestions. Apply auto-fixes? (y/n)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
- Fixes are applied using the `edit` tool (targeted replacements, not full-file rewrites)
|
|
- Per-file linter checks run after fixes to verify they don't introduce new issues
|
|
- For PR reviews, fixes are committed on the PR branch — you need to `git push` to update the PR
|
|
- Nice to have and low-confidence findings are never auto-fixed
|
|
|
|
## PR Inline Comments
|
|
|
|
Use `--comment` to post findings directly on the PR:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
/review 123 --comment
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Or, after running `/review 123`, type `post comments` to publish findings without re-running the review.
|
|
|
|
**What gets posted:**
|
|
|
|
- High-confidence Critical and Suggestion findings as inline comments on specific lines
|
|
- A review summary with verdict (Approve / Request changes / Comment)
|
|
- Model attribution footer (e.g., _Reviewed by qwen3-coder via Qwen Code /review_)
|
|
|
|
**What stays terminal-only:**
|
|
|
|
- Nice to have findings (including linter warnings)
|
|
- Low-confidence findings
|
|
|
|
## Follow-up Actions
|
|
|
|
After the review, context-aware tips appear as ghost text. Press Tab to accept:
|
|
|
|
| State after review | Tip | What happens |
|
|
| ----------------------- | ------------------ | --------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Unfixed findings remain | `fix these issues` | LLM interactively fixes each finding |
|
|
| PR review with findings | `post comments` | Posts PR inline comments (no re-review) |
|
|
| Local review, all clear | `commit` | Commits your changes |
|
|
|
|
## Project Review Rules
|
|
|
|
You can customize review criteria per project. `/review` reads rules from these files (in order):
|
|
|
|
1. `.qwen/review-rules.md` (Qwen Code native)
|
|
2. `.github/copilot-instructions.md` (preferred) or `copilot-instructions.md` (fallback — only one is loaded, not both)
|
|
3. `AGENTS.md` — `## Code Review` section
|
|
4. `QWEN.md` — `## Code Review` section
|
|
|
|
Rules are injected into the LLM review agents (1-4) as additional criteria. For PR reviews, rules are read from the **base branch** to prevent a malicious PR from injecting bypass rules.
|
|
|
|
Example `.qwen/review-rules.md`:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Review Rules
|
|
|
|
- All API endpoints must validate authentication
|
|
- Database queries must use parameterized statements
|
|
- React components must not use inline styles
|
|
- Error messages must not expose internal paths
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Incremental Review
|
|
|
|
When reviewing a PR that was previously reviewed, `/review` only examines changes since the last review:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
# First review — full review, cache created
|
|
/review 123
|
|
|
|
# PR updated with new commits — only new changes reviewed
|
|
/review 123
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Cross-model review
|
|
|
|
If you switch models (via `/model`) and re-review the same PR, `/review` detects the model change and runs a full review instead of skipping:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
# Review with model A
|
|
/review 123
|
|
|
|
# Switch model
|
|
/model
|
|
|
|
# Review again — full review with model B (not skipped)
|
|
/review 123
|
|
# → "Previous review used qwen3-coder. Running full review with gpt-4o for a second opinion."
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Cache is stored in `.qwen/review-cache/` and tracks both the commit SHA and model ID. Make sure this directory is in your `.gitignore` (a broader rule like `.qwen/*` also works). If the cached commit was rebased away, it falls back to a full review.
|
|
|
|
## Review Reports
|
|
|
|
Every review is saved as a Markdown file in your project's `.qwen/reviews/` directory:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
.qwen/reviews/2026-04-06-143022-pr-123.md
|
|
.qwen/reviews/2026-04-06-150510-local.md
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Reports include: timestamp, diff stats, deterministic analysis results, all findings with verification status, and the verdict.
|
|
|
|
## Cross-file Impact Analysis
|
|
|
|
When code changes modify exported functions, classes, or interfaces, the review agents automatically search for all callers and check compatibility:
|
|
|
|
- Parameter count/type changes
|
|
- Return type changes
|
|
- Removed or renamed public methods
|
|
- Breaking API changes
|
|
|
|
For large diffs (>10 modified symbols), analysis prioritizes functions with signature changes.
|
|
|
|
## What's NOT Flagged
|
|
|
|
The review intentionally excludes:
|
|
|
|
- Pre-existing issues in unchanged code (focus on the diff only)
|
|
- Style/formatting/naming that matches your codebase conventions
|
|
- Issues a linter or type checker would catch (handled by deterministic analysis)
|
|
- Subjective "consider doing X" suggestions without a real problem
|
|
- Minor refactoring that doesn't fix a bug or risk
|
|
- Missing documentation unless the logic is genuinely confusing
|
|
- Issues already discussed in existing PR comments (avoids duplicating human feedback)
|
|
|
|
## Design Philosophy
|
|
|
|
> **Silence is better than noise.** Every comment should be worth the reader's time.
|
|
|
|
- If unsure whether something is a problem → don't report it
|
|
- Linter/typecheck issues are handled by tools, not LLM guesses
|
|
- Same pattern across N files → aggregated into one finding
|
|
- PR comments are high-confidence only
|
|
- Style/formatting issues matching codebase conventions are excluded
|