chore: public-release follow-ups (issue templates, anchor fixes, model alignment)#28
Merged
Merged
Conversation
- Three nav anchors at the top of the README pointed at sections that don't exist or have been renamed (#what-you-get-back, #comparison). Repoint to the actual section ids and add a Configuration link. - The GitHub App auth path (GITHUB_APP_ID / GITHUB_APP_PRIVATE_KEY) is fully wired in src/pr_af/github/client.py but wasn't documented in .env.example. Add it alongside GH_TOKEN with a note that App auth is preferred when both are present. - CONTRIBUTING.md claimed "CI runs ruff and pytest on every push" — only ruff and the Docker build run in CI today. Correct the description so contributors aren't surprised when CI passes despite local test failures. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
CI runs `ruff check src/ scripts/` but the Makefile checked `src/ tests/`. Result: contributors running `make lint` locally would miss the scripts/ issues that CI catches, and the unused-import noise in tests/ that CI ignores would fail their local lint without ever blocking a PR. Align the Makefile to CI. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Code defaults (src/pr_af/config.py) and .env.example both name openrouter/moonshotai/kimi-k2.6, but the Dockerfile and docker-compose hard-coded kimi-k2.5 in their env blocks. Result: docker users got k2.5 silently while the README documented k2.6. Bump both to k2.6. - Add the GitHub App auth env pair (GITHUB_APP_ID, GITHUB_APP_PRIVATE_KEY) to docker-compose so the App-auth path actually works in compose deploys; previously only GH_TOKEN / GITHUB_TOKEN were forwarded. - Add the budget knobs (PR_AF_NO_BUDGET, PR_AF_MAX_DURATION_SECONDS, PR_AF_MAX_COST_USD, PR_AF_MAX_CONCURRENT_REVIEWERS) with a comment pointing out that the default 300s / $2 budget is sized for smoke tests and a real review needs PR_AF_NO_BUDGET=true (or raised caps) to run to completion. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three issue forms (bug, feature, security-via-config) and a PR template matching the format used in SWE-AF. Public-facing repos benefit from the structured templates — bug reports without reproduction steps and PRs without a validation checklist are the two most common things that slow review. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
3 tasks
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Follow-up to #27 with fixes and polish surfaced in a fresh-eyes review.
Test plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code