fix: tell review agents which project root to read files from - #363
Merged
Conversation
In git-worktree setups, reviewer subagents were reading files from the main checkout instead of the worktree where the commits actually live, producing spurious findings against stale (un-refactored) content. The "@filepath" entries in the instruction file's "Files to Review" section are not auto-expanded — the reviewer must Read each file itself — so they were being resolved against whatever cwd the subagent happened to inherit. Emit an explicit "## Project Root" directive at the top of each instruction file stating the absolute project root and instructing the reviewer to prepend it when calling Read. Adds REVIEW-REQ-005.1.9 and tests validating presence, ordering, and the write_instruction_files plumbing that threads project_root through. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Pre-existing code-quality issues surfaced by the reviewers on this PR (none were introduced by the original fix, but pulling them in here since the files are already under review): instructions.py: - _run_precompute_command docstring no longer claims "command" is an absolute path — it's a shell command string, invoked via shell=True - Noted the trust model for precompute shell commands (repo-sourced, never fed untrusted input) - ThreadPoolExecutor now caps at max_workers=8 so a repo with many distinct precompute commands can't briefly fork dozens of shells - _build_reference_files_section no longer re-encodes the (possibly truncated) content string to recompute its byte count; the consumed budget is now tracked explicitly as either original_byte_len or the exact remaining budget on truncation config.py: - ReviewRule.precomputed_info_bash_command field comment matches the docstring fix above test_instructions.py: - Moved five traceability comment blocks from inside the method body to the two lines directly preceding the def line, matching the convention enforced by test_file_quality - test_count_cap_triggers_omission no longer hardcodes "f20.txt" as "one of the omitted" — derives the filename from MAX_INLINE_FILES so the test stays correct if the constant changes - _sanitize_for_id import moved from a function-local line to the top-of-module import block REVIEW-REQ-005 spec: - Split five compound requirements so each numbered item carries exactly one RFC 2119 keyword (requirements_file DeepSchema rule). Preserved existing IDs (5.1.4, 5.1.8, 5.8.4–5.8.6) — each retains its primary MUST — and appended the secondary obligations as new sequential IDs (5.1.10, 5.1.11, 5.8.7–5.8.11) CHANGELOG.md: - Added entry for the worktree file-path fix under the Unreleased Fixed section Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
instructions.py: - precomputed_info lookup now uses direct key access ([]) instead of .get() so a dict/filter drift between unique_commands and the per-task lookup would fail loudly instead of silently dropping precomputed context. Also aligned both predicates on `is not None` so an empty-string command would not be executed then silently discarded. - Added a docstring note to _content_hash pinning the trust contract: files entries must be repo-root-relative paths from trusted .deepreview config, with no absolute paths or .. traversal. test_instructions.py: - New module-level `instructions_dir` pytest fixture that creates `.deepwork/tmp/review_instructions/` under tmp_path. Seven tests now use it instead of repeating the two-line setup inline. - test_single_file_produces_expected_format uses direct `(tmp_path / "src").mkdir(...)` instead of the indirect `.parent.mkdir` form, matching adjacent tests in TestComputeReviewId. - Added an inline comment on the `2 * MAX_INLINE_FILES` fence-count assertion explaining the 2x relationship. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
file-purpose-comment MUST FAILhits on files that already had purpose comments in the worktree).@filepathentries in each instruction file's "Files to Review" section are not auto-expanded — the reviewer mustReadeach file itself — so they resolve against whatever cwd the subagent inherits. When that cwd is the main checkout,Readreturns un-refactored content, which then disagrees with the "Relevant File Contents" block that was correctly inlined from the worktree.## Project Rootdirective at the top of each instruction file stating the absolute project root and telling the reviewer to prepend it when callingRead. Reviewer behavior is now cwd-independent.Changes
src/deepwork/review/instructions.py—build_instruction_filetakes an optionalproject_root: Path; emits the new section when provided.write_instruction_filesthreads it through.specs/deepwork/review/REVIEW-REQ-005-instruction-generation.md— adds REVIEW-REQ-005.1.9 with the worktree rationale.tests/unit/review/test_instructions.py— new tests covering presence, ordering before "Review Instructions", backward-compat whenproject_rootis omitted, and thewrite_instruction_filesplumbing.Test plan
uv run pytest tests/unit/review/test_instructions.py(60 passed)uv run pytest tests/unit/review/(260 passed)## Project Rootsection in an actual worktree run🤖 Generated with Claude Code