Skip to content

Tell an auto author to relay a failed review's error, not guess at it - #25

Merged
leonlee merged 4 commits into
mainfrom
fix/author-failure-instructions
Oct 31, 2026
Merged

leonlee merged 4 commits into
mainfrom
fix/author-failure-instructions

Conversation

@leonlee

@leonlee leonlee commented Oct 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

This morning a managed review failed because of --reviewer-model GPT-6.1-Sol. The auto author blamed the user's Codex config, and said a pair wait retry would work once that was fixed. Both were wrong. Since 0.7.0 the error itself names the override and says a retry keeps it. This makes the author's instructions match.

  • prompts/pair.md, Auto mode: if a managed review fails, show the user the error as printed, including the quoted reviewer output, and don't guess at a cause it doesn't name. If it names --reviewer-model or --reviewer-effort, tell the user to pair stop and start again with another value; pair start --resume keeps the conversation. Otherwise pair wait retries.
  • The opening line no longer says the partner always runs in another terminal.
  • The author's system prompt in src/auto.ts gets the same guidance in one sentence.

This changes the instructions in every worktree. They refresh on the next send or wait, as with any release. No test pins this wording, and 111 tests pass.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_012Y3kg5hjT2zSZM9qUEEinM

leonlee and others added 4 commits October 30, 2026 18:55
When a managed review failed because of a reviewer override, an author blamed the user's Codex
config and promised a retry would work; both were wrong. The instructions and the author's system
prompt now say: show the error as printed, don't guess at a cause it doesn't name, and when it
names --reviewer-model or --reviewer-effort, ask the user to restart with another value instead
of retrying. The instructions also no longer say the partner always runs in another terminal.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_012Y3kg5hjT2zSZM9qUEEinM
…e reminder

Every failed round reminds the author that retries keep the reviewer settings, so naming an
override doesn't mean it caused the failure. Only reviewer output saying the model or effort is
invalid or unsupported calls for a restart; a timeout still retries.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_012Y3kg5hjT2zSZM9qUEEinM
An xhigh review found the "invalid or unsupported" condition too narrow (a missing model is
often "not found" or "does not exist"), timeouts not always worth retrying, the two copies of the
rule already out of step, and no cap on retries, all because the error told the author to stop
whenever an override was set and the prompts told it to ignore that.

The error now only states facts: what pair wait keeps, and that changing it takes pair stop and a
new pair start. The author retries once; if the same failure comes back, it stops and asks the
user, naming any reviewer setting the error says a retry keeps. The rule lives in one constant
used by the author's system prompt, and a test keeps prompts/pair.md saying the same.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_012Y3kg5hjT2zSZM9qUEEinM
The author's send already adds that the request remains on disk, so the failure no longer says
Request saved too, and 'changing that' fits one override or two.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_012Y3kg5hjT2zSZM9qUEEinM
@leonlee
leonlee merged commit 31f4c5e into main Oct 31, 2026
2 checks passed
@leonlee
leonlee deleted the fix/author-failure-instructions branch October 31, 2026 12:31
@leonlee leonlee mentioned this pull request Oct 31, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant