项目文件夹

文件
wehub-resource-sync b4fbd6fe9f
Deploy Site / deploy-vercel (push) Has been skipped
Deploy Site / deploy-docs (push) Has been skipped
Build Skills Index / build-index (push) Has been skipped
CI / Deny unrelated histories (push) Has been skipped
CI / Detect affected areas (push) Successful in 27m35s
CI / OSV scan (push) Failing after 4s
CI / Build&Test Docker image (push) Successful in 9s
CI / Supply-chain scan (push) Has been skipped
CI / Lint Docker scripts (push) Failing after 5m13s
CI / Check contributors (push) Failing after 12m8s
CI / Docs Site (push) Failing after 12m8s
CI / TypeScript (push) Failing after 12m8s
CI / Python lints (push) Failing after 12m9s
CI / Python tests (push) Failing after 12m9s
CI / Check uv.lock (push) Failing after 23m22s
CI / CI timing report (push) Has been cancelled
Build Skills Index / trigger-deploy (push) Has been cancelled
CI / All required checks pass (push) Has been cancelled
chore: import upstream snapshot with attribution
2026-07-13 11:56:03 +08:00

2.4 KiB

Review Output Template

Use this as the structure for PR review summary comments. Copy and fill in the sections.

For PR Summary Comment

## Code Review Summary

**Verdict: [Approved ✅ | Changes Requested 🔴 | Reviewed 💬]** ([N] issues, [N] suggestions)

**PR:** #[number] — [title]
**Author:** @[username]
**Files changed:** [N] (+[additions] -[deletions])

### 🔴 Critical
<!-- Issues that MUST be fixed before merge -->
- **file.py:line** — [description]. Suggestion: [fix].

### ⚠️ Warnings
<!-- Issues that SHOULD be fixed, but not strictly blocking -->
- **file.py:line** — [description].

### 💡 Suggestions
<!-- Non-blocking improvements, style preferences, future considerations -->
- **file.py:line** — [description].

### ✅ Looks Good
<!-- Call out things done well — positive reinforcement -->
- [aspect that was done well]

---
*Reviewed by Hermes Agent*

Severity Guide

Level Icon When to use Blocks merge?
Critical 🔴 Security vulnerabilities, data loss risk, crashes, broken core functionality Yes
Warning ⚠️ Bugs in non-critical paths, missing error handling, missing tests for new code Usually yes
Suggestion 💡 Style improvements, refactoring ideas, performance hints, documentation gaps No
Looks Good Clean patterns, good test coverage, clear naming, smart design decisions N/A

Verdict Decision

  • Approved — Zero critical/warning items. Only suggestions or all clear.
  • Changes Requested 🔴 — Any critical or warning item exists.
  • Reviewed 💬 — Observations only (draft PRs, uncertain findings, informational).

For Inline Comments

Prefix inline comments with the severity icon so they're scannable:

🔴 **Critical:** User input passed directly to SQL query — use parameterized queries to prevent injection.
⚠️ **Warning:** This error is silently swallowed. At minimum, log it.
💡 **Suggestion:** This could be simplified with a dict comprehension:
`{k: v for k, v in items if v is not None}`
✅ **Nice:** Good use of context manager here — ensures cleanup on exceptions.

For Local (Pre-Push) Review

When reviewing locally before push, use the same structure but present it as a message to the user instead of a PR comment. Skip the PR metadata header and just start with the severity sections.