feat: Add priority badges to PR review prompts (#69)

jerop · web-flow · commit 36bf2d96104a · 2025-07-31T17:54:13.000-04:00
This commit enhances the PR review workflow by adding priority badges to
the review comments. This allows for a more granular and organized
feedback system, enabling developers to quickly identify the urgency of
each suggested change.

The following files have been modified:

These changes introduce a new set of markdown badges for different
priority levels (low, medium, high, critical, and unknown) and instruct
Gemini CLI to prepend them to each review comment. This will improve the
clarity and actionability of the code review process.
diff --git a/.github/workflows/gemini-pr-review.yml b/.github/workflows/gemini-pr-review.yml
@@ -235,13 +235,28 @@ jobs:
             Once you have the information, provide a comprehensive code review by:
             1. Writing your review to a file: write_file("review.md", "<your
                detailed review feedback here>")
+
             2. Posting the review:
                 2.1 Use the mcp__github__create_pending_pull_request_review to create a Pending Pull Request Review.
+
                 2.2 Use the mcp__github__add_comment_to_pending_review to add comments to the Pending Pull Request Review. Inline comments are preffered whenever possible, so repeat this step, calling mcp__github__add_comment_to_pending_review, as needed. All comments about specific lines of code should use inline comments. It is preferred to use code suggestions when possible, which include a code block that is labeled "suggestion", which contains what the new code should be. An example is:
                   {{COMMENT_TEXT}}
                   ```suggestion
                   {{CODE_SUGGESTION}}
                   ```
+                Prepend a priority emoji to each comment:
+                - 🟢 for low priority
+                - 🟡 for medium priority
+                - 🟠 for high priority
+                - 🔴 for critical priority
+                - 🔵 if priority is unclear
+
+                Example:
+                ```
+                🟠
+                This is a high priority issue.
+                ```
+
                 2.3 Use the mcp__github__submit_pending_pull_request_review to submit the Pending Pull Request Review.
 
             Review Areas:
@@ -270,46 +285,6 @@ jobs:
             - Highlight positive aspects of the implementation
             - Note any recurring themes across files
 
-            ## 🎯 Specific Feedback
-            (Only include sections below that have actual issues)
-
-            ### 🔴 Critical
-
-            (Only include this section if there are critical issues)
-
-            Issues that must be addressed before merging (security
-            vulnerabilities, breaking changes, major bugs):
-            - **File: `filename:line`** - Description of critical issue with
-              specific recommendation
-
-            ### 🟡 High
-
-            (Only include this section if there are high priority issues)
-
-            Important issues that should be addressed (performance problems,
-            design flaws, significant bugs):
-            - **File: `filename:line`** - Description of high priority issue
-              with suggested fix
-
-            ### 🟢 Medium
-
-            (Only include this section if there are medium priority issues)
-
-            Improvements that would enhance code quality (style issues, minor
-            optimizations, better practices):
-            - **File: `filename:line`** - Description of medium priority improvement
-
-            ### 🔵 Low
-
-            (Only include this section if there are suggestions)
-
-            Nice-to-have improvements and suggestions (documentation, naming,
-            minor refactoring):
-            - **File: `filename:line`** - Description of suggestion or
-              enhancement **Note**: If no specific issues are found in any
-              category, simply state "No specific issues identified in this
-              review."
-
             ## ✅ Highlights
 
             (Only include this section if there are positive aspects to
diff --git a/workflows/pr-review/gemini-pr-review.yml b/workflows/pr-review/gemini-pr-review.yml
@@ -235,13 +235,28 @@ jobs:
             Once you have the information, provide a comprehensive code review by:
             1. Writing your review to a file: write_file("review.md", "<your
                detailed review feedback here>")
+
             2. Posting the review:
                 2.1 Use the mcp__github__create_pending_pull_request_review to create a Pending Pull Request Review.
+
                 2.2 Use the mcp__github__add_comment_to_pending_review to add comments to the Pending Pull Request Review. Inline comments are preffered whenever possible, so repeat this step, calling mcp__github__add_comment_to_pending_review, as needed. All comments about specific lines of code should use inline comments. It is preferred to use code suggestions when possible, which include a code block that is labeled "suggestion", which contains what the new code should be. An example is:
                   {{COMMENT_TEXT}}
                   ```suggestion
                   {{CODE_SUGGESTION}}
                   ```
+                Prepend a priority emoji to each comment:
+                - 🟢 for low priority
+                - 🟡 for medium priority
+                - 🟠 for high priority
+                - 🔴 for critical priority
+                - 🔵 if priority is unclear
+
+                Example:
+                ```
+                🟠
+                This is a high priority issue.
+                ```
+
                 2.3 Use the mcp__github__submit_pending_pull_request_review to submit the Pending Pull Request Review.
 
             Review Areas:
@@ -270,46 +285,6 @@ jobs:
             - Highlight positive aspects of the implementation
             - Note any recurring themes across files
 
-            ## 🎯 Specific Feedback
-            (Only include sections below that have actual issues)
-
-            ### 🔴 Critical
-
-            (Only include this section if there are critical issues)
-
-            Issues that must be addressed before merging (security
-            vulnerabilities, breaking changes, major bugs):
-            - **File: `filename:line`** - Description of critical issue with
-              specific recommendation
-
-            ### 🟡 High
-
-            (Only include this section if there are high priority issues)
-
-            Important issues that should be addressed (performance problems,
-            design flaws, significant bugs):
-            - **File: `filename:line`** - Description of high priority issue
-              with suggested fix
-
-            ### 🟢 Medium
-
-            (Only include this section if there are medium priority issues)
-
-            Improvements that would enhance code quality (style issues, minor
-            optimizations, better practices):
-            - **File: `filename:line`** - Description of medium priority improvement
-
-            ### 🔵 Low
-
-            (Only include this section if there are suggestions)
-
-            Nice-to-have improvements and suggestions (documentation, naming,
-            minor refactoring):
-            - **File: `filename:line`** - Description of suggestion or
-              enhancement **Note**: If no specific issues are found in any
-              category, simply state "No specific issues identified in this
-              review."
-
             ## ✅ Highlights
 
             (Only include this section if there are positive aspects to
