ceos/fastmcp
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/PrefectHQ/fastmcp.git synced 2026-08-09 15:19:10 +02:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Note that review comment threads should get an acknowledgement (#4678)

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Jeremiah Lowin 2026-07-27 16:07:39 -04:00 • committed by GitHub
commit d382943012
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194
1 changed files with 1 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

1
CLAUDE.md
View file

@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ When modifying MCP functionality, changes typically need to be applied across al
- **NEVER** merge a PR marked as do-not-merge or draft. Check title, body, AND labels for `[DNM]`, `DNM`, `DO NOT MERGE`, `DON'T MERGE`, `DONT MERGE`, `do-not-merge`, `dont-merge`, `[DRAFT]`, or `DRAFT` (case-insensitive, any variation — some authors use `[DRAFT]` in the title even when `isDraft` is false). Authors use these as hard stops — respect them even if CI is green and review looks clean. When triaging a batch of PRs, filter these out up front AND re-check each one's labels immediately before merging, since labels can change mid-session. - **NEVER** merge a PR marked as do-not-merge or draft. Check title, body, AND labels for `[DNM]`, `DNM`, `DO NOT MERGE`, `DON'T MERGE`, `DONT MERGE`, `do-not-merge`, `dont-merge`, `[DRAFT]`, or `DRAFT` (case-insensitive, any variation — some authors use `[DRAFT]` in the title even when `isDraft` is false). Authors use these as hard stops — respect them even if CI is green and review looks clean. When triaging a batch of PRs, filter these out up front AND re-check each one's labels immediately before merging, since labels can change mid-session.
- **ALWAYS** read review-bot comments before approving a PR. CodeRabbit and chatgpt-codex-connector (Codex) leave substantive review comments on most PRs in this repo — these bots have read the diff and often flag real issues that aren't in the PR description. Use `gh pr view <num> --comments` and read the bot feedback as part of review. Unlike proposed solutions from issue reporters, review-bot feedback should be evaluated on its merits, not discounted. - **ALWAYS** read review-bot comments before approving a PR. CodeRabbit and chatgpt-codex-connector (Codex) leave substantive review comments on most PRs in this repo — these bots have read the diff and often flag real issues that aren't in the PR description. Use `gh pr view <num> --comments` and read the bot feedback as part of review. Unlike proposed solutions from issue reporters, review-bot feedback should be evaluated on its merits, not discounted.
- **Be constructively skeptical of bot review comments on your own PRs.** CodeRabbit, Codex, and claude[bot] run a fresh review pass on every push, which means a PR with active churn can accumulate bot comments in a stream that never really ends — each fix surfaces a new edge case the next pass can flag. Most of the early feedback is real and worth acting on; diminishing returns set in fast. Evaluate each comment on its merits, the same way you would a human reviewer: is this a real bug users will hit, or a hypothetical that requires an adversarial setup? Does the fix introduce more complexity than the problem? Has the bot missed context that's obvious to a human reader (a `*,` keyword-only marker, a design decision documented elsewhere, something already resolved on a later commit)? When a comment is pedantic, a false positive, or flagging something already fixed, reply on the thread explaining the reasoning and move on — don't keep iterating just because more comments arrive. If you find yourself three rounds deep and the feedback is shifting toward "what if someone does X" hypotheticals, you're past the point where each fix is improving the PR. Stop, document the contract as-is, and ship. - **Be constructively skeptical of bot review comments on your own PRs.** CodeRabbit, Codex, and claude[bot] run a fresh review pass on every push, which means a PR with active churn can accumulate bot comments in a stream that never really ends — each fix surfaces a new edge case the next pass can flag. Most of the early feedback is real and worth acting on; diminishing returns set in fast. Evaluate each comment on its merits, the same way you would a human reviewer: is this a real bug users will hit, or a hypothetical that requires an adversarial setup? Does the fix introduce more complexity than the problem? Has the bot missed context that's obvious to a human reader (a `*,` keyword-only marker, a design decision documented elsewhere, something already resolved on a later commit)? When a comment is pedantic, a false positive, or flagging something already fixed, reply on the thread explaining the reasoning and move on — don't keep iterating just because more comments arrive. If you find yourself three rounds deep and the feedback is shifting toward "what if someone does X" hypotheticals, you're past the point where each fix is improving the PR. Stop, document the contract as-is, and ship.
- **Post a short acknowledgement on every review comment thread.** A few words are enough — that you agree and are taking it, or the reasoning when you're declining. Acknowledge as you read; don't hold the reply until a fix is committed. The bots don't meaningfully read replies, so the audience is the next person to open the PR: without a reply they can't tell whether a comment was weighed and rejected or simply missed.
### Outbound Comments and Shell Interpolation ### Outbound Comments and Shell Interpolation