Skip to content

docs: realign CI review loop to actual fork integrations #12

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
JasonWildMe merged 2 commits into from
Apr 25, 2026
Merged

docs: realign CI review loop to actual fork integrations #12

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
c412e82
docs: realign CI review loop to actual fork integrations
JasonWildMe Apr 25, 2026
5819fc1
docs: address Gemini review on CI loop section
JasonWildMe Apr 25, 2026
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
66 changes: 49 additions & 17 deletions CLAUDE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -23,26 +23,58 @@ When asked to push code, follow this full workflow:
0. ensure that you are on a branch that is specific to this change i.e feat/new-feature or fix/bug-fix or docs/update-readme or chore/update-dependencies, or test/new-test, etc
1. Push the branch to the remote (`git push -u origin <branch>`)
2. Create a PR using `gh pr create`. Ensure that you are adhering to the PR template. **Do NOT include "Generated with Claude Code" or any AI attribution in PR descriptions.**
3. Wait for Gemini to review the PR (poll with `gh pr checks` and `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/reviews` until a review appears)
4. Once a review exists, pull down the review comments: `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments` and `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/reviews`
5. Address every review comment — fix the code, re-run the quality gates (tests, lint, tsc). Resolve the comment appropriately and post that on the PR directly.
6. Push the fixes
7. Report what was changed in response to the review
3. Wait for GitHub Actions CI to start. Poll with `gh pr checks <pr>` until all four jobs (`typecheck`, `test`, `lint`, `android-build`) report a status. If any fail, fix and re-push before reading reviewer comments.

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot Apr 25, 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.

medium

The placeholder <pr> is inconsistent with the {number} placeholder used in subsequent steps (lines 27 and 56). For consistency and to ensure automated tools like Claude Code can correctly identify the variable, it is better to use {number} throughout. Additionally, gh pr checks typically works without arguments for the current branch's PR, which might be simpler for the user.

Suggested change
3. Wait for GitHub Actions CI to start. Poll with `gh pr checks <pr>` until all four jobs (`typecheck`, `test`, `lint`, `android-build`) report a status. If any fail, fix and re-push before reading reviewer comments.
3. Wait for GitHub Actions CI to start. Poll with gh pr checks {number} until all four jobs (typecheck, test, lint, android-build) report a status. If any fail, fix and re-push before reading reviewer comments.

@JasonWildMe JasonWildMe Apr 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed in 5819fc1 — replaced <pr> with {number} and added the no-arg variant for clarity. Thanks.

4. Once CI is green, wait for Gemini to post (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments` + `.../reviews`).
5. Address every Gemini review comment — fix the code, or reply on the thread explaining why it's fine. Resolve the conversation either way.
6. Push the fixes; pre-commit gates re-run. Comment `/gemini review` to re-trigger Gemini.
7. Loop until CI is green and Gemini has nothing blocking.
8. Report what was changed in response to the review.

## CI Review Loop

The repo has three automated reviewers on every PR. After pushing, loop until all are green:
After pushing, loop until everything below is green or addressed.

| Reviewer | What it checks | How to address |
|---|---|---|
| **Gemini Bot** | Code quality, style, logic issues | Read comments via `gh api`, fix code or reply explaining why it's fine, then comment `/gemini review` to trigger a fresh pass |
| **Codecov** | Test coverage thresholds | Add missing tests, ensure new code is covered. Check the Codecov report for uncovered lines |
| **SonarCloud** | Security hotspots, code smells, duplications, bugs | Fix flagged issues — especially security hotspots and duplications. Resolve quality gate failures before merging |
### GitHub Actions CI (merge-blocking)

The `CI` workflow runs four jobs on every push and PR targeting `main` or `wildlife-reid`:

| Job | What it checks |
|---|---|
| `typecheck` | `tsc --noEmit` |
| `test` | Jest unit + integration tests with coverage |
| `lint` | ESLint + `gradlew :app:lintDebug` + SwiftLint |
| `android-build` | Full debug Gradle build |

If any job fails, fix locally (re-run `npx tsc --noEmit && npm test && npm run lint` to mirror CI), push, and wait for the next run.

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot Apr 25, 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.

medium

There is a discrepancy between the CI jobs described in the table and the suggested local "mirror" command.

  1. The CI test job (line 44) is described as running only Jest, but npm test (as defined in package.json) also executes Android and iOS native tests, which significantly increases local execution time.
  2. The android-build job (line 46) is not covered by the suggested local commands.

To accurately mirror the CI process and save time locally, consider suggesting npx jest for the test portion.

Suggested change
If any job fails, fix locally (re-run `npx tsc --noEmit && npm test && npm run lint` to mirror CI), push, and wait for the next run.
If any job fails, fix locally (re-run npx tsc --noEmit && npx jest --coverage --forceExit && npm run lint to mirror CI), push, and wait for the next run.

@JasonWildMe JasonWildMe Apr 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed in 5819fc1 — replaced the single mirror-command line with a per-job table. test now uses npx jest --coverage --forceExit (the JS-only path) since the npm test script chains Android + iOS via the package.json, which is platform-locked. Also added the android-build local equivalent.


### Gemini Code Assist (advisory)

Auto-reviews every PR on open and on `/gemini review`. Posts a summary comment plus line-level review comments tagged by severity.

**Workflow:**
1. Push code → wait for all three reviewers to report
2. Pull down Gemini comments, Codecov report, and SonarCloud findings
3. Fix issues: code changes for Gemini/SonarCloud, add tests for Codecov
4. Re-run local quality gates (`npm run lint && npm test && npx tsc --noEmit`)
5. Push fixes, comment `/gemini review` on the PR to re-trigger Gemini
6. Repeat until all three reviewers pass with no blocking issues
1. Push → wait for the Gemini summary + comments to land (~1-2 min after PR open or `/gemini review`).
2. Pull down comments: `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments` and `.../reviews`.
3. Address every comment — fix the code, or reply on the comment thread explaining why it's a non-issue. Resolve the conversation.
4. Re-run pre-commit gates locally, push fixes.
5. Comment `/gemini review` on the PR to trigger a fresh pass.
6. Repeat until Gemini's findings are addressed.

Gemini findings are advisory — they don't block merge themselves, but unaddressed legitimate findings should block merge in human review.

### Codex 5.5 (on-demand second opinion)

Use for scoped deep reviews when warranted (foundational PRs, risky refactors, pre-merge sanity passes). Not part of the routine PR loop.

```bash
codex exec -s read-only --skip-git-repo-check "<scoped review prompt>"
```

File substantive findings to `kb/wildlife-reid-mobile/outputs/reports/`.

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot Apr 25, 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.

medium

The path kb/wildlife-reid-mobile/outputs/reports/ appears to reference the upstream project name (wildlife-reid-mobile). Since this PR aims to realign the documentation with the current fork (named offgrid-mobile in package.json), this path should be updated to reflect the current project structure to ensure the AI agent can correctly locate the reports directory.

Suggested change
File substantive findings to `kb/wildlife-reid-mobile/outputs/reports/`.
File substantive findings to kb/offgrid-mobile/outputs/reports/.

@JasonWildMe JasonWildMe Apr 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Rejecting this suggestion. The kb directory kb/wildlife-reid-mobile/ is named for the product domain (wildlife re-identification on mobile), not the fork name. The fork is off-grid-mobile per package.json because we're reusing the upstream's app shell, but the work scoped under kb/wildlife-reid-mobile/ is specifically about the on-device re-ID pivot — its detector models, MiewID v4.1 export, pack format, integration plan, etc.

Also, the directory already exists with substantive content (~20 wiki/raw/output files); renaming would break internal cross-references and stored memory. The pattern-match Gemini did here (fork name in package.json → KB path) doesn't apply to this project's intentional domain-vs-app naming.


### Human review (final gate)

Final approval required before merging into `wildlife-reid` or `main`.

### Not currently installed

Codecov and SonarCloud are referenced in some upstream docs but are **not** wired up on this fork. If reinstated later, document them here. CodeQL (free, one-click at `Settings → Code security`) is a reasonable alternative if SAST is desired.
Loading