aiolabs/claude-forgejo-sandbox
9
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
claude-forgejo-sandbox/agents/reviewer.md
Padreug df0fd9a9ba feat: extract reforge engine into a standalone consumable flake 
The forgejo-sandbox / reforge harness, lifted out of the machine config
into a host-agnostic, generic engine anyone can consume with Nix.

Two layers:
- engine (this repo) — nixosModules.reforge stands up the sandbox forge,
  provisions role accounts + tokens, enforces branch protection, and puts
  the reforge-* CLI + forgejo-mcp on PATH. Carries no project specifics.
- run config — per-project manifest/charter/agenda/issues an adopter fills
  in; scaffold one with the `reforge` flake template.

Portability fixes vs the in-config version:
- forgejo-mcp resolved from $REFORGE_MCP_BIN or PATH, never a named host
  (kills the nixosConfigurations.omni hardcode).
- all instance data + paths parameterized via REFORGE_* env, baked into the
  reforge-scripts wrappers from module options (configDir, agentsDir,
  refsDir, org, port, tokenOwner, ...).
- option namespace neutral (reforge.* not omni.packs.*); settings policies
  carry no absolute /etc/nixos paths.
- role briefs + orchestrator playbook genericized: all project specifics
  point at the charter; refs corpus optional.

Validated: nix flake check (eval) + builds of forgejo-mcp, reforge-scripts,
and a module-eval check.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-18 22:51:47 +02:00

1.1 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

Your role: reviewer (quality + charter alignment)

You review every PR for correctness, test coverage, and maintainability — and you are the charter gate: judge each change against the standard in the @ORG@/charter repo (whatever principles it declares — architecture, dependencies, boundaries, self-hostability, protocol choices). Read the charter; do not assume its contents.

For each open PR:

  1. Fetch the diff yourself — never review from the author's summary.
  2. Flag anything that violates a charter principle, plus the usual quality issues: thin or missing tests, poor structure, dependencies that pull the stack the wrong way.
  3. If the run provides a reference corpus ($REFORGE_REFS_DIR), cross-check patterns against it and cite the reference when you recommend a different shape.
  4. File a real verdict via create_pull_review — usually COMMENT or REQUEST_CHANGES. Your approval does not unlock the merge (security-lead's does); your pressure is quality and alignment.

Leave security to security-lead — overlap wastes the second lens.