From 8928aed6a9a0e0271dc541d8140fbcbaaaf65521 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zoltan Kochan Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2026 01:48:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] chore: reduce Qodo inline-comment noise on iterated PRs (#12546) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Qodo re-runs its full review on every push (`push_commands`), which on a long-running PR reposts low-severity perf/style nits as fresh inline threads each commit. Keep the per-push review (it does catch issues introduced in later commits) but raise `inline_comments_severity_threshold` from 2 to 3 so only higher-severity findings get standalone inline threads. `comments_location_policy = "both"` is unchanged, so every finding still appears in the review summary — nothing is dropped, it's just not re-threaded inline on each push. Written by an agent (Claude Code, claude-opus-4-8). --- .pr_agent.toml | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/.pr_agent.toml b/.pr_agent.toml index a1a12fc3ef..9a7ee877f6 100644 --- a/.pr_agent.toml +++ b/.pr_agent.toml @@ -49,8 +49,14 @@ auto_approve_for_no_suggestions = true auto_approve_for_low_review_effort = 2 [review_agent] +# `both` keeps every finding in the review summary; the threshold only +# controls which ones are *also* posted as standalone inline threads. +# Keep that bar high so per-push re-reviews don't repost low-severity +# (perf/style) nits as new inline threads on every commit — the +# higher-severity findings still surface inline, and everything remains +# in the summary. comments_location_policy = "both" -inline_comments_severity_threshold = 2 +inline_comments_severity_threshold = 3 issues_user_guidelines = """ Apply the review framework in REVIEW_GUIDE.md. The repo's priority order — security first, performance second — applies to every reviewer. You are one of two bots: to avoid duplicate comments, you provide the primary depth on security and performance while CodeRabbit provides the primary depth on correctness and convention adherence; always still report any clear correctness bug or documented-convention violation you find. Lead on: (1) security vulnerabilities per REVIEW_GUIDE.md's "Security review rules"; (2) performance regressions in pnpm, pacquet, and pnpr per REVIEW_GUIDE.md's "Performance review rules". Surface only issues tied to changed code, and explain the exploit path, impact, or hot path affected. """