Skip to content

Keep user-visible wording a human-review reason; complete the README summary #16

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
william-gr merged 1 commit into from
Sep 12, 2026
Merged

Keep user-visible wording a human-review reason; complete the README summary #16

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
15 changes: 8 additions & 7 deletions README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -290,13 +290,14 @@
| No or unparseable output | nothing | fails |

"A human must look" is the reviewer's own answer to the *Does this need a
human?* section of `review/rubric.md`, which defaults to no and says yes only
for a line in the diff that removes or changes something external callers
depend on, adds or major-bumps a dependency, changes a workflow's permissions,
secrets or what it publishes, changes a visible default or removes a feature,
deletes or loosens a test, or migrates persisted data. The PR description,
deferred work, size, refactors, new tests and wording are listed there as
non-reasons. `human-review-paths` is the floor under that judgement: it forces
human?* section of `review/rubric.md`. In summary, it defaults to no and says
yes for a line in the diff that removes or changes something external callers
depend on, adds or major-bumps a runtime dependency, changes a workflow's
permissions, secrets, what it publishes or what can merge, changes a visible
default or removes a feature, deletes or loosens a test, migrates persisted
data, or does what the repo's own review guidelines say a person decides. The
PR description, deferred work, size, refactors, new tests and wording a user
does not see are listed there as non-reasons; the rubric is the full list. `human-review-paths` is the floor under that judgement: it forces

Check notice on line 300 in README.md

View workflow job for this annotation

GitHub Actions / claude-review / Automatic PR review 

LOW: Rewritten paragraph leaves a ~148-character line where the file wraps at ~76, running two sentences together unwrapped

@github-actions github-actions Bot Sep 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LOW — This line is ~148 characters; the rest of the paragraph, and the file, wrap at ~76. The rewrite added text mid-paragraph without rewrapping, so the non-reasons sentence and the human-review-paths sentence run together on one line.

Suggested change
does not see are listed there as non-reasons; the rubric is the full list. `human-review-paths` is the floor under that judgement: it forces
does not see are listed there as non-reasons; the rubric is the full list.
`human-review-paths` is the floor under that judgement: it forces

the answer for any PR touching a matching file regardless of what the reviewer
said, and is where a repo puts the paths it always wants eyes on.

Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion review/rubric.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@
- size, or the number of files touched;
- a refactor, rename, or move that keeps behaviour;
- new or extended tests;
- comments, docs, or wording changes;
- comments, docs, or wording a user does not see;

Check notice on line 138 in review/rubric.md

View workflow job for this annotation

GitHub Actions / claude-review / Automatic PR review 

LOW: Narrowing this non-reason removes user-visible wording from the non-reasons but adds no clause to the closed reasons list, so a copy-only change still resolves to required false

@github-actions github-actions Bot Sep 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LOW — Narrowing this non-reason to "wording a user does not see" removes user-visible wording from the non-reasons, but it does not make it a reason. The reasons list above is closed — line 111 reads "Answer true only when a line in the diff does one of these" — and none of the seven clauses covers a relabelled destructive action or a reworded error message: clause 1 enumerates API/type/CLI flag/wire format/config key, and clause 4 is a default value or a removed feature, not a string. So a webui PR that renames "Delete" to "Remove" still falls through to line 145's "When unsure, answer false", which is the case the PR description says this change exists to catch.

The intent needs a positive clause in the list above — e.g. "changes wording a user sees where the new wording could mislead: a destructive action's label, a warning, an error message" — rather than only a subtraction from the list below.

Graded LOW rather than MEDIUM: under the amended rubric false is the specified answer, so nothing here contradicts an executable claim; the gap is between the file and the stated goal.

- a CI or workflow change that does not change permissions, secrets, what is
published, or what gates a merge;
- code that adds a case, branch, or handler alongside existing ones without
Expand Down
Loading