[Issue #25] Add lint checking to code-reviewer agent #85

HugoNijhuis · 2026-01-10T18:20:35Z

HugoNijhuis commented

2026-01-10 18:20:35 +00:00

Summary

Enhances the code-reviewer agent to include style and lint issues in its review output.

Changes

Add linter detection logic that checks for common linter configuration files (ESLint, Ruff, Flake8, Pylint, golangci-lint, Clippy, RuboCop)
Add instructions to run the linter on changed files only
Add "Lint Issues" section to the review output format
Clearly distinguish lint issues from logic/security issues in the verdict criteria
Document that lint issues alone should result in "Needs Changes" at most, never "Blocking Issues"

Closes #25

## Summary Enhances the code-reviewer agent to include style and lint issues in its review output. ## Changes - Add linter detection logic that checks for common linter configuration files (ESLint, Ruff, Flake8, Pylint, golangci-lint, Clippy, RuboCop) - Add instructions to run the linter on changed files only - Add "Lint Issues" section to the review output format - Clearly distinguish lint issues from logic/security issues in the verdict criteria - Document that lint issues alone should result in "Needs Changes" at most, never "Blocking Issues" Closes #25

HugoNijhuis added 1 commit 2026-01-10 18:20:35 +00:00

Add lint checking to code-reviewer agent dd24a3dd78

- Add linter detection logic that checks for common linter config files
  (ESLint, Ruff, Flake8, Pylint, golangci-lint, Clippy, RuboCop)
- Add instructions to run linter on changed files only
- Add "Lint Issues" section to review output format
- Clearly distinguish lint issues from logic/security issues
- Document that lint issues alone should not block PRs

Closes #25

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

HugoNijhuis commented

2026-01-10 18:27:21 +00:00

AI Code Review

This is an automated review generated by the code-reviewer agent.

Summary

Excellent enhancement that adds automated linting to the code review process. The implementation is well-structured, comprehensive, and properly distinguishes lint issues from functional concerns.

Findings

Code Quality

Well-organized table showing linter detection logic across multiple languages
Clear separation of concerns between linting and other review categories
Step numbering is updated correctly throughout the process
Good documentation of the bash example for filtering changed files

Potential Bugs

No issues found

Security Concerns

No security concerns identified

Lint Issues

No linter configured for this repository (documentation-only change)

Test Coverage

Adequate for this type of change (agent configuration and documentation)
The implementation is straightforward and can be validated through actual PR reviews

Positive Notes

The distinction between lint issues and blocking issues is clearly documented
The "Needs Changes" vs "Blocking Issues" clarification prevents over-escalation of style issues
Comprehensive coverage of popular linters across 6 different languages
Proper handling of edge cases (no linter installed, no changed files, etc.)
The addition of filtering changed files only is resource-efficient

Verdict

LGTM - This change improves the code review process by automating style checking while maintaining appropriate severity levels for different issue types.

## AI Code Review > This is an automated review generated by the code-reviewer agent. ### Summary Excellent enhancement that adds automated linting to the code review process. The implementation is well-structured, comprehensive, and properly distinguishes lint issues from functional concerns. ### Findings #### Code Quality - Well-organized table showing linter detection logic across multiple languages - Clear separation of concerns between linting and other review categories - Step numbering is updated correctly throughout the process - Good documentation of the bash example for filtering changed files #### Potential Bugs - No issues found #### Security Concerns - No security concerns identified #### Lint Issues - No linter configured for this repository (documentation-only change) #### Test Coverage - Adequate for this type of change (agent configuration and documentation) - The implementation is straightforward and can be validated through actual PR reviews ### Positive Notes - The distinction between lint issues and blocking issues is clearly documented - The "Needs Changes" vs "Blocking Issues" clarification prevents over-escalation of style issues - Comprehensive coverage of popular linters across 6 different languages - Proper handling of edge cases (no linter installed, no changed files, etc.) - The addition of filtering changed files only is resource-efficient ### Verdict **LGTM** - This change improves the code review process by automating style checking while maintaining appropriate severity levels for different issue types.

HugoNijhuis merged commit a4c09b8411 into main

2026-01-10 18:27:27 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: flowmade-one/architecture#85