Defame1297
38f1ba4e03
Claude Code's (and Copilot's) native plugin installer has zero awareness of .apm/ nesting -- it convention-scans only flat skills/, agents/, commands/, hooks.json at each plugin's root. Confirmed via strings on the installed claude binary and live installs of git@holocron/gitea@holocron/kyberforge@ holocron, all reporting Skills(0) Agents(0) Hooks(0) post ADR-0015's apm conversion. Root cause (apm_cli/core/plugin_manifest.py): apm's plugin.json compiler deliberately strips skills/agents/commands keys, assuming the host already auto-discovers those convention directories -- it has no model of .apm/ being host-visible at all. Separately, apm's own bundle exporter (apm_cli/bundle/plugin_exporter.py, behind `apm pack --format plugin`) implements the correct .apm/ -> flat mapping, but only ever targeted build/<name>-<version>/, a path nothing in marketplace.json's source: points at. scripts/sync-plugin-content.sh wraps that bundle exporter and copies its agents/, skills/, commands/, instructions/, extensions/, and merged hooks.json back into each plugin's own root as a second tracked compiled-output category -- same governance status as .claude-plugin/plugin.json: generated from .apm/, never hand-edited. tests/ subdirectories are excluded from the mirror (dev fixtures, not host-visible runtime content; several hardcode a relative repo-root walk-up sized for the .apm/-nested depth, which breaks when duplicated one level shallower). Applied for real across all 6 plugins and verified two ways: `claude plugin validate --strict` passes on every real plugin directory, and a live `claude --plugin-dir <path> -p "list skills/agents"` behavioral test confirms content is now actually discovered. Also, from the same issue #90 review round: - scripts/check-manifests.sh pointed at each plugin's root-level plugin.json (checking skills/hooks/mcpServers/agents pointer fields) -- that file was a stale near-duplicate of .claude-plugin/plugin.json nothing else read or wrote, now deleted across all 6 plugins. check-manifests.sh is rewritten to validate .claude-plugin/plugin.json instead, and drops the pointer-field checks entirely (nothing to check -- those fields are correctly absent by design). Content-presence drift is now check-plugin-content-sync's job, a new pre-push hook wired in .pre-commit-config.yaml. docs/adr/0017 records the root cause and decision in full, including two rejected alternatives (patching plugin.json's path fields directly -- apm's compiler strips them on every run; pointing marketplace.json at apm pack's build/ output -- a version-suffixed non-source directory nothing can install from without an extra build step). ADR-0015 and CONTEXT.md are updated to point at it. Refs: #90
3.9 KiB
3.9 KiB
topic, source_keys
| topic | source_keys | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| reviews |
|
PR review execution detail
Parameter signatures below are cross-checked live against the deployed gitea-mcp server tool schema, not copied from the plugin's research doc verbatim — same sourcing discipline as references/pull-requests.md.
Review state machine
A review is not a single write. It moves through states:
create— opens a review in"PENDING"state, optionally attaching inline comments. Nothing is visible to other users yet.submit— finalizes the pending review with a terminalstate:"APPROVED","REQUEST_CHANGES", or"COMMENT". This is the point at which the review becomes visible and counts toward merge-gate requirements (seereferences/merging.md).dismiss— invalidates an already-submitted review (e.g. an approval that's no longer valid after force-push), with an optionalmessagegiving the reason. Dismissal does not delete the review record — it stays visible but marked dismissed.delete— removes a review outright. Use only for a review that was never submitted (e.g. abandoning aPENDINGdraft); do not usedeleteto retract a submitted review — usedismissinstead.
pull_request_review_write
Parameters:
method(string, required) —"create"|"submit"|"delete"|"dismiss"owner(string, required)repo(string, required)pull_number(number, required)review_id(number, required for every method except"create", which returns the ID to use for the follow-upsubmit/delete/dismisscall)state(string, optional) —"APPROVED"|"REQUEST_CHANGES"|"COMMENT"|"PENDING"— set on"create"(typically"PENDING", or a terminal state to create-and-submit in one call if the server supports it) or"submit"(terminal state)body(string, optional) — overall review comment textcommit_id(string, optional, for"create") — anchors inline comments to a specific commit SHA (typically the PR's current head SHA frompull_request_read method: "get")message(string, optional, for"dismiss") — dismissal reasoncomments(array of objects, optional, for"create") — inline comments, each:{path, body, old_line_num, new_line_num}—pathis the file path,bodyis the comment text,new_line_numanchors to a line in the new (added) side of the diff,old_line_numanchors to a line in the old (removed) side; use whichever side the comment applies to, not both
Reading reviews (pull_request_read)
method: "get_reviews"— array of review summaries:id,state,body,user(login),comments_count,submitted_at,html_url,stale(bool — the PR was pushed to after this review was submitted, meaning it may be outdated),official(bool),dismissed(bool).method: "get_review"(requiresreview_id) — single review detail.method: "get_review_comments"(requiresreview_id) — array of inline comments:id,body,path,position,old_position,diff_hunk,user,html_url,created_at,updated_at.
review_scomments typo: the full PR object returned by pull_request_read method: "get" includes a field named review_scomments (a count), not review_comments — a source-level misspelling in gitea-mcp v1.3.0's slim.go. Do not write code or instructions that reference review_comments on that response; it will always be undefined. This is distinct from the get_review_comments method above, which is spelled correctly and returns the actual comment objects.
Inline-comment field names differ between write and read. The comments array on pull_request_review_write method: "create" uses old_line_num/new_line_num. The get_review_comments read response uses different field names for the same concept — position (new-side line) and old_position (old-side line). Do not assume the same key names apply on both sides of the round trip.