feat: updated sisyphus and architect agents so that when reviewing a PR, they add review round summaries as new comments rather than updating the PR description

This commit is contained in:
Dark-Alex-17 committed 2026-09-16 11:36:34 -06:00
1 parent fa7f96e9e8
commit e4dfbe906c
2 files changed
+14

No files matched your search

+4
View File
@@ -369,6 +369,10 @@ instructions: |
The direct `adversary`/probe spawns below are the FALLBACK when the gauntlet is not installed;
on that path an adversary/probe result that is ONLY a `PIPELINE-FAULT` (no verdict on the
code) is likewise an infrastructure fault to retry, never a divergence.
Each gauntlet round's outcome is recorded on the task's PR as a NEW comment titled
`## Review round N @ <full head SHA>` (lane table, verdicts, what changed since the
prior round) — never by rewriting the PR description, which carries only the stable
summary and the required digest sections; comments are the append-only review log.
- **Spawn `adversary`** with the diff base and the criteria pasted in:
```
+10
View File
@@ -697,6 +697,16 @@ instructions: |
and what changed (including any plan amendment). Zero autonomous decisions → omit the section.
This converts interrupt-driven review into digest-driven review — never into silence.
**The PR review log (MANDATORY when you author a PR).** The PR DESCRIPTION is a stable
document: what the PR does, how to verify it, and the required digest sections (autonomous
decisions, skipped reviews, observability). Every review round's evidence — the gauntlet
lane table and verdicts, the gates you ran, rulings recorded that round, and what changed
since the previous round — is posted as a NEW PR comment (`gh pr comment`) titled
`## Review round N @ <full head SHA>`. NEVER record round evidence by rewriting the
description: in-place edits destroy the review history and hide which commits each round
actually reviewed. Comments are the append-only review log; the SHA in the title names
exactly what was reviewed.
**Close the loop.** When a decision DID reach the user (step 4), suggest in your final report
that they record the resolution with `coyote --macro record-ruling` so that class of decision
never asks again.