docs: Add comprehensive code review feedback guidance to AGENTS.md #202
Conversation
Add new "Working with Code Review Feedback" section with guidance for both Claude (AI coding agent) and CodeRabbit (AI code reviewer) to improve collaboration quality and reduce incomplete implementations. Key additions for Claude: - Triage feedback into critical/important/optional categories - Evaluate suggestions against existing codebase patterns - Consider context and scope before implementing changes - Verify completion before claiming work is ready - Document deferrals with clear rationale Key additions for CodeRabbit: - Project-specific patterns (async-first, ManagedEntry, test mixins) - Prioritization guidance for categorizing feedback by severity - Context awareness for different code types (production vs debug) - Pattern consistency checks before suggesting changes Enhanced "Radical Honesty" section with specific guidance on documenting unresolved items, acknowledging uncertainty, and sharing trade-offs. Added common feedback categories section covering clock usage, connection ownership, async patterns, test isolation, and type safety. Resolves #198 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-authored-by: William Easton <strawgate@users.noreply.github.com>
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe change adds a new "Working with Code Review Feedback" section to AGENTS.md with guidance for AI agents on handling code review feedback, including triage, pattern evaluation, and verification steps. The "Radical Honesty" section is expanded from a brief statement into a structured checklist for documenting uncertainties, trade-offs, and limitations in code reviews. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
AGENTS.md(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
AGENTS.md (4)
115-177: Targeted guidance effectively addresses PR#198 objectives.The section directly mitigates the identified failure modes:
- "Triage Before Acting" (lines 125-134) addresses poor prioritization
- "Evaluate Against Existing Patterns" (lines 136-146) addresses accepting conflicting suggestions
- "Verify Completion" (lines 157-167) with explicit checklist prevents premature completion claims
The checklist format and prohibition on claiming completion with unresolved critical/important issues are appropriately firm given the stated problem.
Verify that the test pattern reference (line 145-146:
ContextManagerStoreTestMixin) is the canonical pattern used in the test suite. If the project uses multiple test patterns, consider whether additional examples would improve clarity.
227-246: Common feedback categories are well-chosen and appropriately scoped.The categories address key concerns for an async-first library with multiple backends:
- Clock usage (monotonic vs wall-clock) is a critical correctness issue in time-sensitive components
- Connection ownership prevents resource leaks in store implementations
- Async patterns distinguish between production and debug code appropriately
- Test isolation aligns with existing testing requirements (lines 23-29)
- Type safety reinforces project's strict type-checking policy
The categories appear to be general best practices rather than project-specific patterns, which is reasonable as guidance for feedback generation.
Verify that these feedback categories reflect actual patterns observed in the project's stores/wrappers or known areas of improvement. Consider whether critical patterns are missing (e.g., TTL handling with
ManagedEntry, wrapper composition patterns, dependency initialization).
376-389: Expanded "Radical Honesty" section appropriately reinforces completion standards.The expansion from a brief statement to a structured checklist strengthens accountability:
- Five categories (document, acknowledge, report, share, admit) provide concrete guidance beyond "be honest"
- Line 386 prohibition ("Never claim work is complete if you have doubts...") directly mitigates the stated problem from PR#198
- Complement to the "Verify Completion" checklist (lines 157-167) provides both procedural and philosophical anchoring
The tone is appropriately firm while acknowledging AI limitations realistically.
115-389: Complete section is well-organized and comprehensively addresses PR#198 objectives.The new "Working with Code Review Feedback" section and expanded "Radical Honesty" section form a cohesive guidance framework:
Strengths:
- Directly mitigates all three failure modes identified in issue #198 (premature completion, conflicting suggestions, poor prioritization)
- Consistent 3-tier categorization (Critical/Important/Optional) across Claude and CodeRabbit guidance creates alignment
- Parallel structure for both AI agents makes expectations clear
- Context-aware guidance appropriately calibrates review standards by code type
- Cross-references to existing documentation are accurate (async-first architecture, ManagedEntry, ContextManagerStoreTestMixin, strict type checking)
- Explicit checklist + philosophical reinforcement (Verify Completion + Radical Honesty) provides both procedural and values-based guidance
Integration:
- Placement and organization are logical and coherent
- No contradictions with existing AGENTS.md content
This is a solid documentation update that should meaningfully improve AI agent collaboration on this project.
Summary
Adds comprehensive guidance for both Claude (AI coding agent) and CodeRabbit (AI code reviewer) to improve collaboration quality and reduce incomplete implementations.
Changes
Why
Analysis of recent PRs showed that Claude sometimes:
Since CodeRabbit also reads AGENTS.md, adding guidance for CodeRabbit helps it provide better-prioritized, context-aware feedback.
Resolves #198
Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit