docs: add Kilo review guidance - #1
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 32 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
This pull request targeted The base branch has been automatically changed to |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a new REVIEW.md file outlining the review contract, severity calibration, verification expectations, and agent-maintained review memory. The feedback suggests minor phrasing improvements to clarify terminology (such as expanding "auth" to "authentication/authorization") and enhance the professionalism of the documentation.
Important
The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub is being sunset. Starting June 18, 2026, new organization installations will be blocked, and all code review activity will officially cease on July 17, 2026.
For more details on the timeline and next steps, please review the Help Documentation.
|
|
||
| ## Review Contract | ||
| - Review only issues introduced by the current pull request unless a changed line exposes an existing critical risk. | ||
| - Prioritize correctness, security, data integrity, auth, destructive operations, and user-visible regressions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The abbreviation 'auth' is ambiguous as it can refer to either 'authentication' or 'authorization' (or both). Specifying 'authentication/authorization' clarifies the scope of this priority.
| - Prioritize correctness, security, data integrity, auth, destructive operations, and user-visible regressions. | |
| - Prioritize correctness, security, data integrity, authentication/authorization, destructive operations, and user-visible regressions. |
| ## Severity Calibration | ||
| - Critical: data loss, privilege escalation, token or secret exposure, billing mistakes, broken authentication, destructive operations without safeguards. | ||
| - Warning: missing validation, unsafe defaults, untested edge cases, concurrency/race risks, resource leaks, misleading errors. | ||
| - Nit: avoid unless the issue materially affects maintainability or repeated review history says this repo needs attention there. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using 'indicates this repository needs attention in that area' is more precise and professional than 'says this repo needs attention there'.
| - Nit: avoid unless the issue materially affects maintainability or repeated review history says this repo needs attention there. | |
| - Nit: avoid unless the issue materially affects maintainability or repeated review history indicates this repository needs attention in that area. |
| - Generated files, snapshots, and lockfiles should only be reviewed when they are the actual source of risk. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Agent-Maintained Review Memory | ||
| Agents that open or update PRs in this repository must keep this section current when review history shows a repeated pattern. Add dated bullets only for durable repo-specific lessons, not one-off PR commentary. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replacing 'bullets' with 'bullet points' and 'repo-specific' with 'repository-specific' improves the clarity and professionalism of the documentation.
| Agents that open or update PRs in this repository must keep this section current when review history shows a repeated pattern. Add dated bullets only for durable repo-specific lessons, not one-off PR commentary. | |
| Agents that open or update PRs in this repository must keep this section current when review history shows a repeated pattern. Add dated bullet points only for durable, repository-specific lessons, rather than one-off PR commentary. |
![kilo-code-bot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/2193792?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| ## Agent-Maintained Review Memory | ||
| Agents that open or update PRs in this repository must keep this section current when review history shows a repeated pattern. Add dated bullets only for durable repo-specific lessons, not one-off PR commentary. | ||
|
|
||
| - No recurring repo-specific review patterns have been recorded yet. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SUGGESTION: Structural inconsistency in the Agent-Maintained Review Memory section.
The section opens with a prose paragraph (line 21) that instructs agents to "Add dated bullets only for durable repo-specific lessons...". The closing item on line 23 is itself a - bullet (- No recurring repo-specific review patterns have been recorded yet.), but it is a placeholder rather than a dated, durable lesson — so it conflicts with the very instruction given one line above (it has no date and is not a recurring pattern). This will confuse future agents about whether the placeholder counts as one of the dated bullets.
Smallest credible fix: either make line 23 a plain non-bulleted line (e.g. > _No recurring repo-specific review patterns have been recorded yet._) so it is clearly a placeholder and not a pattern entry, or drop the dash so it reads as a sentence rather than a list item.
| - No recurring repo-specific review patterns have been recorded yet. | |
| No recurring repo-specific review patterns have been recorded yet. |
Reply with @kilocode-bot fix it to have Kilo Code address this issue.
Code Review SummaryStatus: 1 Issue Found | Recommendation: Address before merge Overview
Notes
Issue Details (click to expand)SUGGESTION
Files Reviewed (1 file)
Fix these issues in Kilo Cloud Reviewed by minimax-m3 · Input: 28.7K · Output: 4.2K · Cached: 92.6K Review guidance: REVIEW.md from base branch |
1 participant
Adds a baseline
REVIEW.mdso Kilo Code Reviews has repository-level guidance from the base branch after merge.\n\nThe file establishes severity calibration, verification expectations, and an agent-maintained review-memory section for durable lessons from future PRs.