Automate ADR-backed component review guidance#8174
Conversation
|
Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 68a3cde5-7a50-4d4e-97d9-194c8b112e88
Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 68a3cde5-7a50-4d4e-97d9-194c8b112e88
51876a1 to
e9ca907
Compare
|
joshblack
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried running this to see what kind of stuff it would output and I was surprised that it didn't seem to honor some of the ADRs 🤔
As an example, I tried to create an accordion component locally and was surprised that it didn't follow the file conventions ADR to include a test file.
Could you do like a before/after kind of approach for what this kind of stuff would help out with compared to baseline? In just a one-off test it didn't seem to provide a better outcome but I also get how unscientific that is lol.
Happy to keep testing if that would be better, just wanted to leave a note while looking at this today 👀
Closes #
Builds on #8173's small ADR-backed review trial by replacing its hand-authored instruction with a complete, validated policy generation system. Public ADRs and maintained contributor guidance produce path-scoped Copilot Code Review instructions; sanitized internal direction is limited to outcome-only rules.
Changelog
New
Changed
Removed
Rollout strategy
Testing & Reviewing
Review this after the base trial establishes that path-scoped ADR rules produce useful CCR feedback. Compare
contributor-docs/review-guidance/with the generated instructions and consolidated skill reference. The internal policy intentionally excludes private provenance, identifiers, rationale, links, and alternatives.Run
npm run test:review-guidanceandnpm run check:review-guidance.