Continuous ai review bot #7099

tomasz-stefaniak · 2025-08-12T14:51:09Z

Description

The bot is triggered when the PR opens or when a draft PR is converted to a regular PR.

Checklist

[] I've read the contributing guide
[] The relevant docs, if any, have been updated or created
[] The relevant tests, if any, have been updated or created

Screen recording or screenshot

[ When applicable, please include a short screen recording or screenshot - this makes it much easier for us as contributors to review and understand your changes. See this PR as a good example. ]

Tests

[ What tests were added or updated to ensure the changes work as expected? ]

Summary by cubic

Added a GitHub Actions workflow to automatically run the Continue CLI for code review on pull requests and pushes to main.

New Features
Installs and runs the Continue CLI with a hardcoded prompt to review code quality.
Uses the CONTINUE_API_KEY secret for authentication.

github-actions · 2025-08-12T14:51:24Z

⚠️ PR Title Format

Your PR title doesn't follow the conventional commit format, but this won't block your PR from being merged. We recommend using this format for better project organization.

Expected Format:

<type>[optional scope]: <description>

Examples:

feat: add changelog generation support
fix: resolve login redirect issue
docs: update README with new instructions
chore: update dependencies

Valid Types:

feat, fix, docs, style, refactor, perf, test, build, ci, chore, revert

This helps with:

📝 Automatic changelog generation
🚀 Automated semantic versioning
📊 Better project history tracking

This is a non-blocking warning - your PR can still be merged without fixing this.

cubic-dev-ai

cubic analysis

1 issue found across 1 file • Review in cubic

_{React with 👍 or 👎 to teach cubic. You can also tag @cubic-dev-ai to give feedback, ask questions, or re-run the review.}

cubic-dev-ai · 2025-08-12T14:54:42Z

.github/workflows/cli-review.yaml

+          # Run the CLI with a hardcoded prompt and output text directly
+          echo "Review this pull request and provide feedback on code quality" | cn -p --org continuedev
+        env:
+          CONTINUE_API_KEY: ${{ secrets.CONTINUE_API_KEY }}


Referencing a required secret in a pull-request workflow without a fallback or conditional guard will make the job fail for contributions from forks.

Prompt for AI agents

Address the following comment on .github/workflows/cli-review.yaml at line 36: <comment>Referencing a required secret in a pull-request workflow without a fallback or conditional guard will make the job fail for contributions from forks.</comment> <file context> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +name: CLI Review + +on: + pull_request: + branches: + - main + + push: + branches: </file context>

github-actions · 2025-08-12T15:48:31Z

Code Review Summary

✅ Strengths

Clear structure: Well-organized workflow with logical step progression and clear naming conventions
Comprehensive security: Proper permissions scope (read-only contents, write for PR comments)
Good error handling: Uses conditional checks, artifact uploads, and try-catch blocks for robustness
Artifact management: Properly uploads review results with appropriate retention policy
Comment management: Smart logic to update existing bot comments instead of creating duplicates
Environment isolation: Uses proper environment variable handling for secrets

⚠️ Issues Found

HIGH SEVERITY:

Hardcoded CLI version: Line 28 pins to a specific version @continuedev/[email protected] which will become outdated and may introduce compatibility issues
Missing error handling: The gh pr diff command (line 34) and Continue CLI execution (line 88) lack proper error handling if they fail

MEDIUM SEVERITY:

Workflow trigger scope: Triggers on pull_request.opened and ready_for_review but misses subsequent pushes to PR branches, meaning code changes won't trigger re-reviews
Resource usage: fetch-depth: 0 fetches entire git history which may be unnecessary for PR diffs and could impact performance
Inconsistent condition: The workflow only runs when github.event.pull_request.draft == false but doesn't check this in the trigger conditions

LOW SEVERITY:

Magic strings: Bot signature  could be defined as a constant
Hardcoded organization: Uses continuedev org and review-bot config without making them configurable

💡 Suggestions

Make CLI version configurable: Use a workflow input or environment variable for the CLI version instead of hardcoding
Add comprehensive triggers: Include synchronize event to re-review when PR is updated:
```
on:
  pull_request:
    types: [opened, ready_for_review, synchronize]
```

Add error handling: Wrap critical commands in conditional checks:

if ! gh pr diff ${{ github.event.number }} > pr_diff.txt; then
  echo "Failed to get PR diff" && exit 1
fi

Optimize git fetch: Use fetch-depth: 1 unless full history is specifically needed
Add workflow inputs: Make organization and config configurable for reusability
Consider rate limiting: Add logic to prevent excessive API calls for rapid PR updates

🚀 Overall Assessment

COMMENT - The workflow is well-structured and functional but has several areas for improvement, particularly around error handling and version management. The security implementation is solid, and the overall approach is sound. The issues found are not critical enough to block deployment but should be addressed to ensure long-term maintainability and reliability.

cubic-dev-ai

cubic analysis

2 issues found across 2 files • Review in cubic

_{React with 👍 or 👎 to teach cubic. You can also tag @cubic-dev-ai to give feedback, ask questions, or re-run the review.}

cubic-dev-ai · 2025-08-12T15:51:16Z

.github/workflows/cli-review.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+name: CLI Review


This workflow duplicates the existing continue-review workflow, causing redundant CI runs and potential duplicate PR comments.

Prompt for AI agents

Address the following comment on .github/workflows/cli-review.yaml at line 1: <comment>This workflow duplicates the existing continue-review workflow, causing redundant CI runs and potential duplicate PR comments.</comment> <file context> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +name: CLI Review + +on: </file context>

cubic-dev-ai · 2025-08-12T15:51:16Z

.github/workflows/cli-review.yaml

+          echo ""
+
+          # Run the CLI with a hardcoded prompt and output text directly
+          echo "Review this pull request and provide feedback on code quality" | cn -p --org continuedev


Running the CLI in interactive mode will block the workflow because no TTY is available in GitHub Actions.

Prompt for AI agents

Address the following comment on .github/workflows/cli-review.yaml at line 34: <comment>Running the CLI in interactive mode will block the workflow because no TTY is available in GitHub Actions.</comment> <file context> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +name: CLI Review + +on: + pull_request: + branches: + - main + + push: + branches: </file context>

cubic-dev-ai

cubic analysis

3 issues found across 2 files • Review in cubic

_{React with 👍 or 👎 to teach cubic. You can also tag @cubic-dev-ai to give feedback, ask questions, or re-run the review.}

cubic-dev-ai · 2025-08-12T16:11:55Z

.github/workflows/cli-review.yaml

+    branches:
+      - main
+
+jobs:


Workflow omits an explicit permissions: section, so it runs with the default broad permissions instead of the minimal set required.

Prompt for AI agents

Address the following comment on .github/workflows/cli-review.yaml at line 12: <comment>Workflow omits an explicit `permissions:` section, so it runs with the default broad permissions instead of the minimal set required.</comment> <file context> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +name: CLI Review + +on: + pull_request: + branches: + - main + + push: + branches: </file context>

cubic-dev-ai · 2025-08-12T16:11:55Z

.github/workflows/cli-review.yaml

+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+
+      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4


Action version is not pinned to an immutable reference, which can allow unexpected or malicious changes to be introduced if the tag is retagged.

Prompt for AI agents

Address the following comment on .github/workflows/cli-review.yaml at line 18: <comment>Action version is not pinned to an immutable reference, which can allow unexpected or malicious changes to be introduced if the tag is retagged.</comment> <file context> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +name: CLI Review + +on: + pull_request: + branches: + - main + + push: + branches: </file context>

cubic-dev-ai · 2025-08-12T16:11:55Z

.github/workflows/continue-review.yaml

+
+on:
+  pull_request:
+    types: [opened, ready_for_review]


Workflow is not re-run when new commits are pushed, so the AI review comment can fall out-of-date.

Prompt for AI agents

Address the following comment on .github/workflows/continue-review.yaml at line 5: <comment>Workflow is not re-run when new commits are pushed, so the AI review comment can fall out-of-date.</comment> <file context> @@ -0,0 +1,164 @@ +name: Continue CLI Code Review + +on: + pull_request: + types: [opened, ready_for_review] + +permissions: </file context>

In my experience. Only "ready to review" is great to limit credit spend, but I don't think contributors will start with a draft. So makes sense to have this as opened, but probably makes sense"ready to review" unnecessary

github-actions · 2025-08-12T16:31:19Z

Code Review Summary

✅ Strengths

Clear structure: Well-organized workflow with logical step progression
Comprehensive permissions: Appropriate read/write permissions for PR operations
Error handling: Includes fallback handling for empty review output
Artifact preservation: Uploads review results for debugging and auditing
Security awareness: Uses hardcoded organization/config to prevent arbitrary execution
Conditional execution: Properly skips draft PRs
Timeout protection: 10-minute timeout prevents runaway jobs
Comment management: Creates new comments rather than editing existing ones

⚠️ Issues Found

Medium: Hardcoded CLI version (@continuedev/[email protected]) will become outdated and may cause compatibility issues
Medium: Missing error handling for CLI command failures - if cn command fails, the workflow continues silently
Low: No validation that required secret CONTINUE_API_KEY is configured before running
Low: Git diff retrieval uses gh pr diff but doesn't verify GitHub CLI is available
Low: Large prompt construction could hit shell command length limits for very large PRs

💡 Suggestions

Use latest CLI version: Consider using @continuedev/cli@latest or pin to a more recent stable version

Add error handling: Wrap the Continue CLI execution in error checking:

- name: Run Continue CLI Review
  run: |
    if ! cat review_prompt.txt | cn --auto --org continuedev --config continuedev/review-bot -p > code_review.md; then
      echo "⚠️ Continue CLI execution failed" > code_review.md
      exit 1
    fi

Add secret validation: Check for required secrets early in the workflow
Consider rate limiting: Add logic to skip reviews for very large PRs (>1000 lines) to avoid resource exhaustion
Add workflow dispatch: Allow manual triggering for testing purposes
Improve logging: Add debug output to show CLI version and configuration being used

🚀 Overall Assessment

COMMENT - This is a well-structured GitHub workflow that appropriately integrates Continue CLI for automated code reviews. The workflow follows GitHub Actions best practices and includes proper error handling for the comment posting. While there are some areas for improvement around version management and error handling, the current implementation is functional and secure. The hardcoded organization/config approach is actually a security benefit that prevents malicious usage.

The workflow fits well within the existing CI/CD ecosystem and doesn't conflict with existing PR checks. It adds value without being disruptive to the development process.

cubic-dev-ai

cubic analysis

1 issue found across 1 file • Review in cubic

_{React with 👍 or 👎 to teach cubic. You can also tag @cubic-dev-ai to give feedback, ask questions, or re-run the review.}

cubic-dev-ai · 2025-08-12T16:32:56Z

.github/workflows/continue-review.yaml

+          echo ""
+
+          # Run the CLI with hardcoded assistant and pipe output to code_review.md
+          cat review_prompt.txt | cn --auto --org continuedev --config continuedev/review-bot -p > code_review.md


This step assumes review_prompt.txt exists, but it is skipped for draft PRs, so the job will crash for every draft pull request.

Prompt for AI agents

Address the following comment on .github/workflows/continue-review.yaml at line 91: <comment>This step assumes review_prompt.txt exists, but it is skipped for draft PRs, so the job will crash for every draft pull request.</comment> <file context> @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@ +name: Continue CLI Code Review + +on: + pull_request: + types: [opened, ready_for_review] + +permissions: + contents: read + pull-requests: write </file context>

tomasz-stefaniak · 2025-08-12T17:16:00Z

@continue-review please review

…only

github-actions · 2025-08-12T18:13:40Z

Code Review Summary

✅ Strengths

Clear Documentation: The PR template now clearly explains the AI review feature to users, setting proper expectations about when reviews run
Proper Permissions: The workflow correctly sets minimal required permissions (contents: read, pull-requests: write, issues: write)
Team Member Restriction: Good security practice by restricting automated reviews to team members only (OWNER, MEMBER, COLLABORATOR)
Dual Triggering: Smart implementation allowing both automatic triggers on PR events and manual triggers via comments
Artifact Retention: Proper artifact uploading with reasonable 30-day retention for debugging
Error Handling: The GitHub script includes try-catch blocks and graceful error handling
Timeout Protection: 10-minute timeout prevents runaway jobs

⚠️ Issues Found

Critical - Hardcoded CLI Version: Line 45 installs a specific version @continuedev/[email protected] which will become outdated and may cause compatibility issues (Medium severity)
Critical - Missing Secret Validation: The workflow uses CONTINUE_API_KEY secret without validating its existence, which could cause silent failures (Medium severity)
Missing Error Context: The workflow doesn't capture or expose CLI execution errors, making debugging difficult (Low severity)
Resource Efficiency: Always uploading artifacts even on failures could waste storage (Low severity)
Branch Context Missing: The workflow doesn't consider target branch context which might be important for review quality

💡 Suggestions

Use Latest CLI Version: Replace hardcoded version with @continuedev/cli@latest or use a version matrix/variable that's easier to maintain
Add Secret Validation: Add a step to validate CONTINUE_API_KEY exists and fail fast with clear error message if missing
Improve Error Handling: Capture CLI stderr/stdout and include in artifacts or comments for better debugging
Conditional Artifacts: Only upload artifacts on failure or when explicitly needed to reduce storage costs
Add Branch Context: Consider including target branch information in the review prompt for better context
Rate Limiting: Consider adding rate limiting to prevent abuse of the manual trigger feature
Review Size Limits: Add checks for PR diff size to avoid processing extremely large changes that might hit API limits

🚀 Overall Assessment

COMMENT - The implementation is solid with good security practices and clear user documentation. However, the hardcoded CLI version and missing secret validation are operational concerns that should be addressed before merging. The feature adds valuable functionality to the development workflow while maintaining appropriate access controls.

The workflow follows GitHub Actions best practices and integrates well with the existing CI/CD infrastructure. Once the version pinning and error handling improvements are made, this will be a robust addition to the codebase.

cubic-dev-ai

cubic analysis

2 issues found across 2 files • Review in cubic

_{React with 👍 or 👎 to teach cubic. You can also tag @cubic-dev-ai to give feedback, ask questions, or re-run the review.}

cubic-dev-ai · 2025-08-12T18:16:39Z

.github/workflows/continue-review.yaml

+
+    steps:
+      - name: Checkout Repository
+        uses: actions/checkout@v4


External actions are referenced only by version tags (e.g., actions/checkout@v4) instead of immutable commit SHAs. Tag drift can introduce unreviewed changes or malicious code into your workflow and is discouraged by GitHub’s security guidelines.

(Based on your team's feedback about pinning third-party GitHub Actions to commit SHAs for supply-chain security.)

Prompt for AI agents

Address the following comment on .github/workflows/continue-review.yaml at line 36: <comment>External actions are referenced only by version tags (e.g., `actions/checkout@v4`) instead of immutable commit SHAs. Tag drift can introduce unreviewed changes or malicious code into your workflow and is discouraged by GitHub’s security guidelines. (Based on your team's feedback about pinning third-party GitHub Actions to commit SHAs for supply-chain security.)</comment> <file context> @@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ +name: Continue CLI Code Review + +on: + pull_request: + types: [opened, ready_for_review] + issue_comment: + types: [created] + +permissions: </file context>

cubic-dev-ai · 2025-08-12T18:16:39Z

.github/workflows/continue-review.yaml

+    # Only run if:
+    # - It's a PR event from a team member (with write/admin permissions)
+    # - OR it's a comment with @continue-review on a PR from a team member
+    if: |


Using the literal block indicator | preserves the newline characters, so the if expression is passed to the runner with embedded new-lines. GitHub Actions fails to parse multi-line if expressions containing newlines, causing the job to be skipped or to error. Use the folded style (>) so the expression is evaluated as a single line.

Prompt for AI agents

Address the following comment on .github/workflows/continue-review.yaml at line 22: <comment>Using the literal block indicator `|` preserves the newline characters, so the `if` expression is passed to the runner with embedded new-lines. GitHub Actions fails to parse multi-line `if` expressions containing newlines, causing the job to be skipped or to error. Use the folded style (`>`) so the expression is evaluated as a single line.</comment> <file context> @@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ +name: Continue CLI Code Review + +on: + pull_request: + types: [opened, ready_for_review] + issue_comment: + types: [created] + +permissions: </file context>

github-actions · 2025-08-12T19:07:05Z

Code Review Summary

✅ Strengths

Clear Documentation: Well-documented workflow with clear steps and comments explaining the purpose
Security-Conscious Design: Proper permission restrictions to team members only (OWNER, MEMBER, COLLABORATOR)
Dual Trigger Support: Supports both automatic triggering on PR events and manual triggering via comments
Comprehensive Error Handling: Includes fallback messages and error logging
Artifact Preservation: Uploads review artifacts for debugging and audit purposes
Professional Template: Uses a structured markdown template for consistent review format

⚠️ Issues Found

High

Hardcoded CLI Version: The workflow installs a specific version of Continue CLI (@continuedev/[email protected]) which will become outdated and may cause compatibility issues or miss important updates
Unvalidated Secret Dependency: The workflow depends on CONTINUE_API_KEY secret but there's no validation that it exists or is properly configured

Medium

Missing Timeout on CLI Execution: The Continue CLI execution has no timeout, which could cause the workflow to hang indefinitely if the CLI becomes unresponsive
No Error Handling for CLI Failures: If the Continue CLI command fails, the workflow will still attempt to post results, potentially posting empty or error content
Large Diff Handling: No size limits on PR diffs - very large PRs could cause performance issues or API limits

Low

Artifact Retention: 30-day retention for artifacts may be excessive for CI workflows, increasing storage costs
Missing Version Pin for Actions: Some actions like upload-artifact@v4 could benefit from SHA pinning for better security

💡 Suggestions

Dynamic CLI Version: Consider using @continuedev/cli@latest or parameterize the version to make updates easier
Add CLI Timeout: Implement a reasonable timeout (e.g., 5 minutes) for the CLI execution step
Improve Error Handling: Add error detection for CLI failures and provide more informative error messages
Add Diff Size Validation: Consider adding a check to skip very large diffs or warn about them
Environment Validation: Add a step to validate that required secrets are configured

🚀 Overall Assessment

COMMENT - The workflow is well-structured and implements good security practices, but needs improvements in error handling and version management before merging. The hardcoded CLI version and lack of timeout handling are the primary concerns that should be addressed.

cubic-dev-ai

cubic analysis

No issues found across 2 files. Review in cubic

Patrick-Erichsen · 2025-08-12T20:24:20Z

.github/workflows/continue-review.yaml

+          node-version: 20
+
+      - name: Install Continue CLI
+        run: npm install -g @continuedev/[email protected]


Do we want to pin to this CLI version?

Yeah, that's by design. I think we should pretty much always do this when using a dependency with ad-hoc npm install. Otherwise, we may end up using a version with a breaking change, or even a version with a security issue.

Patrick-Erichsen · 2025-08-12T20:26:12Z

.github/workflows/continue-review.yaml

+
+          You can use the available tools to explore the codebase and understand context better.
+
+          Format your response as a markdown code review with the following structure:


My hunch is that this will get annoying with it following the exact structure even when unnecessary. Might be helpful to add a comment like "You do not need to follow this exact structure, use it for inspiration while still keeping your review concise and focused."

I made it more rigid on purpose - the odds are most people won't read this thoroughly but will skim it. The more consistent the structure, the easier it will be to find the exact data you need.

Patrick-Erichsen · 2025-08-12T20:27:13Z

.github/workflows/continue-review.yaml

+          1. **Code Quality**: Are there any bugs, performance issues, or code smells?
+          2. **Best Practices**: Does the code follow established patterns and conventions?
+          3. **Security**: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities?
+          4. **Testing**: Are appropriate tests included or updated?
+          5. **Documentation**: Is documentation adequate for the changes?
+          6. **Architecture**: Do the changes fit well with the existing codebase structure?


Since we have the repo cloned, will the agent be following our rules in the .continue folder? If not, could we just cat them into the context window or something?

I thought about this but we have a lot of different rules with different triggers, we'd have to either put all the rules in the context (noisy), or handle rule resolution for each file individually (complicated). I'm not against it but it feels out of the scope of this PR.

tomasz-stefaniak · 2025-08-12T22:38:32Z

@continue-review hello

sestinj · 2025-08-18T20:24:30Z

🎉 This PR is included in version 1.5.0 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

sestinj · 2025-08-18T20:30:42Z

🎉 This PR is included in version 1.7.0 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

tomasz-stefaniak added 3 commits August 1, 2025 13:40

Create cli-review.yaml

1dbba32

Update cli-review.yaml

1bc7791

Update cli-review.yaml

32a8eed

tomasz-stefaniak requested a review from a team as a code owner August 12, 2025 14:51

tomasz-stefaniak requested review from Patrick-Erichsen and removed request for a team August 12, 2025 14:51

github-project-automation bot added this to Issues and PRs Aug 12, 2025

github-project-automation bot moved this to Todo in Issues and PRs Aug 12, 2025

dosubot bot added the size:M This PR changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Aug 12, 2025

cubic-dev-ai bot reviewed Aug 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

tomasz-stefaniak added 3 commits August 12, 2025 07:57

Update cli-review.yaml

b04c6f6

feat: add continue-review.yaml

3de7baa

Merge branch 'main' into tomasz/continuous-ai-review

82c7cc2

dosubot bot added size:L This PR changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size:M This PR changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 12, 2025

tomasz-stefaniak added 2 commits August 12, 2025 08:45

Update continue-review.yaml

2b384e7

Update continue-review.yaml

8b2686c

tomasz-stefaniak marked this pull request as draft August 12, 2025 15:46

tomasz-stefaniak marked this pull request as ready for review August 12, 2025 15:46

cubic-dev-ai bot reviewed Aug 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

improv: use org setup

ae02893

tomasz-stefaniak marked this pull request as draft August 12, 2025 16:05

tomasz-stefaniak marked this pull request as ready for review August 12, 2025 16:05

cubic-dev-ai bot reviewed Aug 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

Delete cli-review.yaml

7dec41f

tomasz-stefaniak marked this pull request as draft August 12, 2025 16:17

tomasz-stefaniak marked this pull request as ready for review August 12, 2025 16:17

improv: always leave a new comment

f15c140

tomasz-stefaniak marked this pull request as draft August 12, 2025 16:29

tomasz-stefaniak marked this pull request as ready for review August 12, 2025 16:29

cubic-dev-ai bot reviewed Aug 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

feat: summon bot

a7e2d6f

tomasz-stefaniak added 3 commits August 12, 2025 10:23

improv: add temporary permissions checks

e623242

improv: add AI code reviews

45c19fa

improv: make it readonly and allow to summon by comment from members …

fafea05

…only

tomasz-stefaniak marked this pull request as draft August 12, 2025 18:11

tomasz-stefaniak marked this pull request as ready for review August 12, 2025 18:12

cubic-dev-ai bot reviewed Aug 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

improv: prompt

9150b6f

tomasz-stefaniak marked this pull request as draft August 12, 2025 19:05

tomasz-stefaniak marked this pull request as ready for review August 12, 2025 19:05

cubic-dev-ai bot reviewed Aug 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

tomasz-stefaniak changed the title ~~Tomasz/continuous ai review~~ Continuous ai review bot Aug 12, 2025

Patrick-Erichsen approved these changes Aug 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

github-project-automation bot moved this from Todo to In Progress in Issues and PRs Aug 12, 2025

dosubot bot added the lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer label Aug 12, 2025

tomasz-stefaniak merged commit ad2fffc into main Aug 12, 2025
42 of 44 checks passed

tomasz-stefaniak deleted the tomasz/continuous-ai-review branch August 12, 2025 22:25

github-project-automation bot moved this from In Progress to Done in Issues and PRs Aug 12, 2025

github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 12, 2025

sestinj added the released label Aug 18, 2025


		You can use the available tools to explore the codebase and understand context better.

		Format your response as a markdown code review with the following structure:

Continuous ai review bot #7099

Continuous ai review bot #7099

Uh oh!

Conversation

tomasz-stefaniak commented Aug 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Checklist

Screen recording or screenshot

Tests

Summary by cubic

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Aug 12, 2025

⚠️ PR Title Format

Expected Format:

Examples:

Valid Types:

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cubic analysis

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot Aug 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Aug 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Review Summary

✅ Strengths

⚠️ Issues Found

💡 Suggestions

🚀 Overall Assessment

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cubic analysis

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot Aug 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot Aug 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cubic analysis

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot Aug 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot Aug 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot Aug 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bdougie Aug 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Aug 12, 2025

Code Review Summary

✅ Strengths

⚠️ Issues Found

💡 Suggestions

🚀 Overall Assessment

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cubic analysis

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot Aug 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tomasz-stefaniak commented Aug 12, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Aug 12, 2025

Code Review Summary

✅ Strengths

⚠️ Issues Found

💡 Suggestions

tomasz-stefaniak commented Aug 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Aug 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading