Commit graph

5 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Johannes du Plessis
82852f9eda
feat: tune reviewer for precision — web/wiki tools + recalibrated prompt (#1312)
* feat: tune reviewer for precision — web/wiki tools + recalibrated prompt

Reviewer agent now has web_search, fetch_url, and http_request alongside the
finding tools, so it can verify library semantics and consult the DeepWiki
auto-generated wiki for public repos (https://deepwiki.com/<owner>/<repo>)
before flagging cross-file or architectural concerns.

Prompt rewritten to push precision over recall:
- explicit severity ladder pushing reviews toward bimodal high/low instead of
  defaulting to medium
- ≤200-char description target (gold set averages ~186 chars; we were at ~436)
- mandatory docs / wiki / code lookup before flagging concurrency, security,
  or perf — the three categories that dominated false positives
- "do not flag" list covering compiler/linter-catchable nits, speculative
  claims without a concrete attacker/interleaving/scale, style preferences
  the codebase doesn't share, and test-quality nits on non-test diffs
- smart file-selection guidance for large PRs (deprioritize generated /
  vendored / pure-rename hunks)

Eval config switched to openai:gpt-5.5 + high reasoning effort for the next
benchmark run.

* trim prompt

* subagent prompting

* confidence ratings

* added medium

* enforce confidence threshold

* .

* reviewer: precision-tuned prompt + drop confidence gate

Rewrites the reviewer system prompt around a defensibility bar (anchor +
failure mode + maintainer wouldn't say "not a bug"), an explicit do-not-file
list (style nits, speculation, scope-policing, same-bug fan-out), and a
checklist of 10 bug archetypes drawn from a per-PR audit of the eval golden
set. The audit showed 145 FPs in the last eval split ~28% speculative, ~26%
style-nit, ~31% real-but-unscored (mostly same-archetype fan-out); the new
prompt targets each class directly.

Confidence is still recorded on every finding for post-hoc calibration but
no longer gates publication — the audit showed the gate was a no-op (agent
self-rated 65% of findings "high" regardless), and the prompt's defensibility
bar is the actual discipline. Drops CONFIDENCE_ORDER, CONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD,
the confidence_threshold kwarg on filter_findings_for_publish, the
confidence_filtered score_mode, and the min_confidence kwarg on the eval
target's _extract_comments — all dead once the gate is gone.

Also removes the "informational" severity tier from the Severity enum,
SEVERITY_ORDER, and all validators / tests / docstrings. It was reserved for
FYI observations the dataset never rewards.

* benchmax

* adding google provider

* slight steering

* tuning

* more tuning

* fix

* cleanup

* reducing overfitting

* Add per-repo review style profiles and inject them into the reviewer.

Dashboard users can analyze historical PR review feedback per repository,
edit the resulting style guide, and have it loaded from LangGraph Store at
reviewer runtime (including Martian eval runs) keyed by owner/name.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

* Fix review style job errors leaking exception details to clients.

Return generic dashboard messages while logging full stack traces server-side.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: open-swe[bot] <open-swe@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
2026-05-20 18:35:00 +00:00
Johannes du Plessis
834efbc33c
feat: Adds ability to run evals against deployment (#1311)
* feat: tighten reviewer eval workflow

Require the reviewer to verify and dedupe findings before recording them, and make benchmark runs safe to execute against deployed reviewer graphs without posting GitHub reviews.

* chore: move reviewer eval settings to config

Load reviewer benchmark settings from the default eval config file so deployed eval runs do not require a wide CLI surface.

* feat: allow reviewer eval model overrides

Pass reviewer model and reasoning effort from the eval config into reviewer runs so isolated benchmark deployments can test Opus 4.7 high thinking.

* fix: use adaptive thinking for Opus 4.7

Switch Opus 4.7 model overrides to Anthropic adaptive thinking with effort instead of the deprecated budgeted thinking payload rejected by the API.

* refactor: use latest Anthropic effort API

Remove legacy Anthropic budget-token thinking support and route Anthropic efforts through adaptive thinking plus effort.

* revert prompting
2026-05-18 15:47:13 -07:00
Johannes du Plessis
378b95266e
feat: implement reviewer findings, publish_review, and watch mode (#1253)
* feat: implement reviewer findings, publish_review, and watch mode

Build out the reviewer agent end-to-end against the design in
REVIEWER_DESIGN.md:

- Findings as first-class state on the reviewer thread metadata
  (`agent/reviewer_findings.py`): Finding TypedDict with start_line/end_line
  ranges, suggestion text for ```suggestion blocks, github_review_comment_id
  for cross-run reconciliation, diff_hunk for UI rendering. Thread-level
  metadata gets `kind=reviewer`, `pr`, `last_reviewed_sha`, `watch` so a
  future frontend can list reviewer threads via the langgraph SDK.
- Diff utilities (`agent/reviewer_diff.py`): parse_unified_diff,
  compute_diff_line_set for in-diff validation, extract_diff_hunk for
  caching the hunk on a Finding, compute_diff_in_sandbox for SHA-to-SHA
  diffs against the prepped repo.
- Tools: `add_finding` (validates against the diff line set so out-of-diff
  ranges fail at creation, not at GitHub-publish), `update_finding`,
  `list_findings`, `publish_review`. The reviewer agent's tool list is
  swapped from `[]` (direct shell `gh api` calls) to these four.
- Publish path (`agent/reviewer_publish.py` + `agent/tools/publish_review.py`):
  one POST /reviews call with body + inline comments + ```suggestion blocks,
  per-comment IDs stored back on findings, GraphQL `resolveReviewThread`
  fired for findings transitioning open->resolved on a re-review.
- Reviewer graph: deterministic clone-or-fetch + checkout in the factory
  before the agent's first model call (warm- and cold-path symmetric);
  computed diff and in-diff line set passed via runnable config; system
  prompt rewritten for the single-evolving-findings model, severity ladder,
  in-diff-only discipline, and watch-mode reconciliation flow.
- Watch mode in webapp.py: `push` event + `pull_request` closed/reopened
  added to supported events. New `process_github_push_event` resolves the
  open PR for the pushed branch, gates on the reviewer thread's `watch`
  flag, builds a re-review configurable, and triggers a run on the same
  canonical thread. `process_github_pr_close` toggles watch on
  closed/reopened. `set_reviewer_thread_metadata` is called on first
  review to install `kind=reviewer` + PR identity + watch=True.
- Eval harness: target.py now extracts `add_finding` calls (mapped to the
  legacy {file, line, body, severity} shape the judge expects) and passes
  the right configurable so the prep step has base/head SHAs.
- Tests: new unit suites for findings helpers, diff parsing, finding tools,
  publish rendering + GraphQL resolve, and watch-mode webhook handlers
  (push triggers re-review only when watching, idempotent on unchanged
  head SHA, PR close disables watch). Updated existing reviewer-webhook
  tests to mock `set_reviewer_thread_metadata`.
- REVIEWER_EVAL_PLAN.md removed per user request; folded relevant context
  into REVIEWER_DESIGN.md.

* fix(reviewer): correct git diff flags, scope, dedup, and review-comments URL

Address PR #1253 review findings:

- compute_diff_in_sandbox dropped the invalid `--no-prefix=false` flag
  (`option no-prefix takes no value` — every prep run was failing
  silently and the agent saw an empty diff).
- compute_diff_in_sandbox grew a `merge_base` flag. First-review path
  now uses three-dot `base...head` (the merge-base diff GitHub renders
  on Files-changed) so we don't pick up changes that landed on the base
  branch after the PR diverged. Re-review delta keeps two-dot
  `last_reviewed_sha..head` since that's exactly the new commits.
- publish_review skips findings that already carry
  `github_review_comment_id`. Without this, watched re-reviews
  re-posted every previously surfaced finding, and only the most-recent
  duplicate's id would later resolve when the issue got addressed.
- fetch_review_comments URL now includes `{pull_number}` —
  `/repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/reviews/{review_id}/comments`
  is the canonical endpoint; the old form 404s, so comment ids were
  never stored and watch-mode resolution couldn't run.

Three new tests cover: three-dot vs two-dot wiring, no `--no-prefix`
flag in the executed command, and that publish_review does not re-post
findings whose `github_review_comment_id` is set.

* fix(reviewer): default publish cap from 15 to 4

A clean PR with one critical issue padded out by three lower-severity
findings is fine; fifteen is review spam. The agent can override per
call when a PR genuinely warrants more.
2026-05-07 14:48:43 -07:00
Johannes du Plessis
ace71b0fd0
feat: add reviewer graph + eval target wiring (#1241)
* feat: add reviewer graph + eval target wiring

- New `reviewer` graph (`agent/reviewer.py`) registered in langgraph.json
  alongside the main `agent` graph. Reuses the same sandbox lifecycle,
  GH proxy auth, and middleware primitives from `agent.server`, but with
  a narrower tool set, a reviewer-specific system prompt, no
  commit/push, and the `task` (subagent) tool stripped via
  `_ToolExclusionMiddleware` so review stays in one context.

- New `github_comment` tool: agents call it once per issue with
  `(file, line, body, severity)` and the eval scores those calls
  against golden comments.

- `ensure_no_empty_msg` middleware (the no_op nudge) is intentionally
  *not* on the reviewer's stack — that middleware exists to enforce the
  main agent's "always finalize via Slack/Linear/PR" contract, which
  the reviewer doesn't have. The main agent's behavior is unchanged.

- `evals/reviewer/target.py`: send PR info as a user message, extract
  every `github_comment` tool call (multiple expected per review) into
  the run output.

- `evals/reviewer/judge.py`: per-example evaluator now returns a list
  of metrics under `{"results": [...]}` so LangSmith averages each
  numeric key (f1/precision/recall/tp/fp/fn) across the experiment in
  the UI. Dropped the broken `aggregate_pr` summary evaluator that
  reached for an attribute that doesn't exist on `RunTree`.

- `evals/reviewer/run_eval.py`: `--limit` now slices the dataset via
  `client.list_examples(limit=N)` since `aevaluate` doesn't accept
  `max_examples`.

- Makefile: `dev` and `run` targets now use `uv run` so they work
  without an activated venv.

* resolve comments

---------

Co-authored-by: open-swe[bot] <open-swe@users.noreply.github.com>
2026-05-06 10:15:58 -07:00
Johannes du Plessis
6cecf429c7
feat: add reviewer eval harness (#1239)
* feat: add reviewer eval harness

Offline LangSmith eval scaffolding for the upcoming Open SWE Reviewer graph.
Imports the 50 PRs from withmartian/code-review-benchmark goldens, resolves
base/head SHAs via gh, and runs a claude-opus-4-5 LLM judge using martian's
verbatim prompt so scores are directly comparable to their published Devin
Review numbers. Reviewer graph itself is not part of this change.

* fix: ruff lint and format on reviewer eval files
2026-05-05 13:04:23 -07:00