[warp-agent-staging]

What this feature does

A review-only automation asks the factory's foreman to delegate code review and publish the review agent's report. Its prompt excludes implementation, approval, and merging.

Summary

Replaces the code-review scaffold with a review-only recipe using provider-specific triggers, the default foreman and review roles, and an explicit review-only automation prompt.

Changes

src/content/docs/factories/use-cases/code-review.mdx

• Configures a foreman-targeted review-only automation: the review agent returns a report and the foreman publishes it.
• Adds concise prerequisites, provider-specific initial and update events, and definition-as-code examples.
• Adds a six-step setup and test procedure.
• Documents re-review, independent model or harness selection, duplicate-review prevention, and human merge authority.

Content design plan

Audience and JTBD: An engineering team that wants consistent independent review on ready pull requests without giving an agent merge authority.

Problem: Existing docs describe agents and automations but do not show a focused review-only configuration or its safety boundaries.

Goals:

• The reader can route ready pull requests through the foreman for delegated review and publication.
• The reader can constrain findings to actionable defects and unmet requirements.
• The reader can test that review does not mutate the branch.

Purpose and value: The recipe adapts a source-reviewed configuration pattern and clarifies how automated review complements repository protection.

Content type: Feature documentation (combined) — the reader needs both decision guidance and setup steps.

Skill and template: draft_feature_doc / .agents/templates/feature-doc.md.

High-impact scenarios:

• Covers: initial review from provider-specific ready or creation events, draft-request checks, and optional re-review after updates.
• Excludes: automatic approval, branch mutation, and merging.

Source files consulted

Checked on 2026-10-21:

• Review-agent output contract — corrected. The default review agent reports only to its orchestrator and forbids direct PR posts. The foreman delegates review and is the communicator. The recipe now targets agent: foreman, requests a report from the review agent, and explicitly instructs the foreman to publish it and stop without implementation. Each re-review event is an explicit request for a fresh review, rather than a claim that the default lifecycle re-reviews automatically.
• GitHub opened-ready finding — not supported by implementation. At warp-server@084e0e425af93139c6e95a78e2981dce55557c31, provider_github.go emits pull_request_ready for both non-draft opened and ready_for_review deliveries. classifier_test.go asserts both cases and excludes draft opens from the derived ready event. The recipe therefore retains the single ready trigger rather than adding an unnecessary opened trigger.
• GitLab and Azure DevOps mappings and filters. provider_gitlab.go, provider_azure_devops.go, and the filter catalogue support the initial/update event mappings, GitLab action filters, and Azure DevOps repository UUID matching. These are implementation contracts, not proof of provider delivery in a particular workspace.
• Definition application. factory_code_browser.go, the save handler, production_trigger.go, and webhook_predicate.go cover managed source saves and synchronization from the configured production branch. The procedure requires confirmation that changes are applied before testing.
• Bot-policy reference — corrected. The recipe now links to the live GitHub bot-event troubleshooting section, verified on 2026-10-21. It explains accepted values, the default, and loop risks. No policy explanation was duplicated into the recipe or a stale reference.

Production-configuration and live contract evidence

• Used the unchanged server_rollout.py helper from docs@9fe3255523eda5c858f3daefd9a15a970a7ea3be against an isolated checkout of warp-server@084e0e425af93139c6e95a78e2981dce55557c31.
• Term checks covered pull_request_ready, pull_request_synchronized, merge_request, pull_request_created, pull_request_updated, and factoryfile. The broad definition-file search also matched unrelated experimental surfaces, so it was not used as a blanket availability verdict. A targeted follow-up check of the nine source-identified routing, provider, save, and apply gates returned exit 0: all nine enabled in the checked-in production configuration, no unknown names. Private flag names and raw output are intentionally not published here.
• Retrieved the production automation JSON Schema on 2026-10-21; its title identifies v1alpha1. Response SHA-256: 655d676dbc436f7b89edfe2c37ef9f383c29b459a22b51c87fcda172a6ccde8e. Production schema publication establishes a live configuration contract, not a provider round trip.
• The corrected foreman-targeted examples and re-review variants passed validate_factory_files with valid: true, no diagnostics, and no deferred resolutions. Provider access and other state-dependent checks were not exercised.

Unverified claims

• No live end-to-end GitHub, GitLab, or Azure DevOps run has exercised the foreman-to-review-to-PR publishing workflow, draft/exclusion checks, or re-review instructions for this recipe. Confirm with a matching test event and inspection of the published report before relying on the workflow.
• The exact inspected server revision has not been matched to a running production deployment. The rollout results above concern checked-in production configuration; schema and published documentation were checked live.
• The original October 7 stable-release assertion was removed because the cited changelog does not establish all capabilities described here. No replacement release-date claim is made.

Documentation risk

Risk: engineering-review-required
Rationale: Adds new public Factory workflow guidance and configuration examples that require product review.
Docs override: none

PR stack

• #895 — Navigation and structure
• #896 — Issue triage
• #897 — Code review
• #898 — Issue implementation
• #899 — Production incident resolution
• #900 — Computer Use verification
• #901 — End-to-end SDLC automation

Dependency: #895 is the shared base and targets main. PRs #896–#901 each independently target factory/factory-use-cases-structure; no guide PR depends on another guide PR.

Human review focus

• Confirm the recommended initial and re-review events.
• Confirm that the output and permission boundaries match the intended review-only product path.

Co-Authored-By: Oz oz-agent@warp.dev

Co-Authored-By: Warp agent@warp.dev

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
docs	Ready	Preview	Oct 21, 2026 9:59pm UTC

[warp-agent-staging]

This PR was generated with Warp.

Comment @warp-staging-factory on this PR to send it follow-up work.

  

[warp-for-oss]

@rachaelrenk

I'm starting a first review of this pull request.

You can view the conversation on Warp.

I completed the review and no human review was requested for this pull request.

Comment /warp-agent-review on this pull request to retrigger a review (up to 3 times on the same pull request).

Powered by Oz

[warp-for-oss]

Overview

This PR replaces the Factory code-review use-case scaffold with a full recipe for routing pull requests and merge requests to a review-only factory agent.

Concerns

• The GitHub automation example promises review on pull requests opened ready for review, but the snippet only subscribes to pull_request_ready; opened non-draft pull requests require pull_request_opened or the prose and test instructions need to narrow scope.
• No approved spec context was provided. The security pass found no separate security issue beyond keeping the recipe's trigger behavior aligned with its review-only claims.

Verdict

Found: 1 critical, 0 important, 0 suggestions

Request changes

Comment /warp-agent-review on this pull request to retrigger a review (up to 3 times on the same pull request).

Powered by Oz

[github-actions]

Review summary

The independent agent completed its review for this commit.

Findings

• src/content/docs/factories/use-cases/code-review.mdx:34 — [CRITICAL] Keeping the default review agent's shared instructions intact conflicts with asking it to post findings directly: examples/00-warp-default-agents/agents/review/agent.md in warpdotdev/warp-factory-examples at 84e7c952f1506c4bd2784d96fd40a6f4d6398cad requires reports only to the orchestrator and explicitly forbids PR posts. Requested resolution: route through a communicator that publishes the review report, or configure a dedicated review-only agent with explicit posting instructions, then align the automation target, setup steps, and expected result.
• src/content/docs/factories/use-cases/code-review.mdx:45 — [IMPORTANT] The new GitHub ready-event behavior, GitLab and Azure DevOps event mappings and filters, step 6 re-review behavior, and step 4 definition application lack recorded production evidence; the cited October 7 stable changelog does not establish these capabilities, no implementation sources are cited, and warp-server is unavailable for a rollout check. Requested resolution: record claim-specific sources and production evidence from a named-revision server_rollout.py check, an applicable released OpenAPI or stable changelog entry, or explicit engineering confirmation; otherwise defer the claims or mark them VERIFY and account for them under Unverified claims. Schema acceptance and existing docs are not release evidence.
• src/content/docs/factories/use-cases/code-review.mdx:68 — [SUGGESTION] The trigger filter reference resolves but contains no skip_bots policy, accepted values, or default, leaving the bot-authored review use case unexplained. Requested resolution: link to an existing explanation that actually owns the policy, or add a source- and rollout-verified explanation to the canonical reference and link to it without duplicating the policy across recipes.

Verdict

Request changes

[github-actions]

Review summary

The independent agent completed its review for this commit.

Findings

• No findings.

Verdict

Approve

[github-actions]

Review summary

The independent agent completed its review for this commit.

Findings

• No findings.

Verdict

Approve