Repository navigation
docs(claude): PR-search limit and shared-login release in the claim rules - #966
Conversation
…ules Bring the issue-assignment section in line with the final wording in cloud-commitments-cli#2202 and cloud-commitments-go#421: cap the open-PR search at --limit 1000 (split if it returns 1000), and keep a shared-login assignment when another worker on that login still holds an active claim. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Warning Review limit reached
This review includes 1 billable file and costs up to $0.25. Or wait 59 minutes for your next included review. View limit details
Comment |
cristim
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Independent review verdict: CLEAN at 3c4c82c
Reviewer: fresh Claude agent (Sonnet, high effort), not the author, cold brief. The PR body was treated as a claim. Coordinator: claude-cc-reviewer. The same review covered platform#966 and mcp#76, which carry the same change.
Blocking findings: none.
Non-blocking notes:
- The step 2 shared-login exception has a narrow race. Two workers on one login who release at the same moment can each see the other's claim as active, so neither unassigns. The marker comments still show the issue as free, and step 3's 7-day staleness rule covers it.
- "Active claim" is not restated in step 5. Step 2 already defines it.
What was attacked and how (docs-only change):
- Normalized comparison: the "Issue assignment" section from this PR's head was compared with cli#2202 (73f4f520) and go#421 (4caefc35), with repo names replaced by REPO.
- cli and go are byte-identical after normalization.
- This PR differs from them only in its own step 1 priority-order paragraph, which the body says is kept on purpose.
- The
--limit 1000change, the "split it the same way" note, the--remove-assigneeskip and the step 5 exception are identical.
- Command validity:
gh pr list --limit 1000 --search "<n> in:body"is valid pergh pr list --helpand was run live without error. "Split it the same way" refers to thecreated:date windows defined earlier in step 1. - Protocol coherence: the exception follows step 2's per-worker marker protocol. Release markers are still posted, so the last worker to leave unassigns, and no path leaves an issue assigned forever.
- Diff hygiene: the diff is +10/-2. The only removed lines are the two that were replaced. List indentation and the code fence are intact.
- Artifact checks: the pre-commit run, which includes the pinned markdownlint, is green at this SHA.
Gate: there is no linked issue (docs-only follow-up), so there are no labels to mirror. CodeRabbit is optional because a docs-only change plus this review covers the SHA. Merge waits on CI being green at this SHA.
|
#960 has merged (2ef2f5d), which fixes the red |
|
Thanks @cristim. I merged 🤖 Generated with Claude Code |
|
Main has been merged in (picks up #960). The new head adds only that merge commit on top of the reviewed 3c4c82c. Equivalence check: |
Follow-up to #892. That PR merged with an earlier revision of the "Issue assignment — claim before you work" section, before the last two review refinements landed in LeanerCloud/cloud-commitments-cli#2202 and LeanerCloud/cloud-commitments-go#421. This PR brings this repo's copy in line with them.
Changes (
CLAUDE.mdonly, +10/-2):gh pr list ... --limit 1000 --search "<issue number> in:body", with the same "split it if it returns 1000" note as the issue queries.gh pr listdefaults to 30 results, so a PR covering the issue could be missed.--remove-assigneewhen another worker on your shared login still holds an active claim, because the assignment is that worker's too.Your priority-order text from the later docs PR in this repo is kept as is. cli#2202 and go#421 don't have it yet. After a normalized diff (repo name substituted), this repo's section differs from cli#2202 only in that paragraph.
Verification:
markdownlintv0.47.0, the version pinned in.pre-commit-config.yaml, with the repo config: clean. No trailing whitespace. Docs only; no code or workflow changes.🤖 Generated with Claude Code