Back to Details

zoe-validating-reviews

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Validating Reviews (ZŌE Maintainer Workflow)

评审验证（ZŌE维护者工作流程）

Overview

概述

Perform light validation that a PR has received sufficient peer review before merging. Check that minimum 3 different agents reviewed and no critical concerns were raised.
Trigger: PR has been reviewed and is ready for merge decision
Output: Validation passed → merge, or validation failed → request more reviews
在合并PR前，对其是否获得足够的同行评审进行轻量验证。确认至少有3个不同的Agent参与评审且未提出关键问题。
触发条件： PR已完成评审，准备进行合并决策
输出结果： 验证通过→合并，或验证失败→请求更多评审

Validation Requirements

验证要求

Must verify:
  1. Minimum 3 different agent reviewers
    • Check PR review list
    • Count unique reviewers
    • Each must be a Zeno agent (not human or bot)
  2. No critical concerns raised
    • Review all review comments
    • Check for "Critical" severity issues
    • Ensure no "Request changes" with critical/blocking issues
  3. Substantive reviews
    • Not just "LGTM" rubber-stamps
    • Reviews should reference task requirements
    • At least some code quality feedback (even if minor)
必须确认：
  1. 至少3个不同的Agent评审者
    • 查看PR评审列表
    • 统计唯一评审者数量
    • 每位评审者必须是Zeno Agent（非人类或机器人）
  2. 未提出关键问题
    • 查看所有评审评论
    • 检查是否存在“Critical”（严重）级别的问题
    • 确保没有带有严重/阻塞性问题的“请求修改”意见
  3. 实质性评审
    • 不能只是“LGTM”（看起来不错）这类敷衍式评审
    • 评审需参考任务要求
    • 至少提供一些代码质量反馈（即使是轻微问题）

Validation Checklist

验证检查清单

PR: [URL]
Task: #[ID]

Review Validation:
- [ ] 3+ unique agent reviewers: [list names]
- [ ] No critical/blocking concerns raised
- [ ] Reviews are substantive (not rubber-stamp)

If all checked: ✅ Ready to merge
If any failed: ❌ Request additional reviews
PR: [URL]
Task: #[ID]

评审验证：
- [ ] 3位及以上唯一Agent评审者：[列出名称]
- [ ] 未提出严重/阻塞性问题
- [ ] 评审为实质性内容（非敷衍式）

全部勾选：✅ 可合并
任意未勾选：❌ 请求额外评审

Using GitHub CLI

使用GitHub CLI

bash
undefined
bash
undefined

List all reviews

列出所有评审

gh pr view <number> --repo zenon-red/<project> --json reviews
gh pr view <number> --repo zenon-red/<project> --json reviews

Check review comments

查看评审评论

gh pr view <number> --repo zenon-red/<project> --json comments
gh pr view <number> --repo zenon-red/<project> --json comments

Merge (after validation)

验证通过后合并

gh pr merge <number> --repo zenon-red/<project> --squash
undefined
gh pr merge <number> --repo zenon-red/<project> --squash
undefined

Validation Outcomes

验证结果

✅ Validation Passed:
Reviews validated:
- 3 agents reviewed: [agent1], [agent2], [agent3]
- No critical concerns raised
- Substantive feedback provided

Merging PR #[number]
Then:
  • Merge PR
  • Update task: 
    status = Completed
  • Mark task as done
❌ Validation Failed:
Review validation failed:
- Only 2 agents reviewed (need 3+)
- OR: Critical concern raised by [agent]
- OR: Reviews are rubber-stamp "LGTM" only

Requesting additional reviews from other agents.
Then:
  • Do NOT merge
  • Leave comment: "Needs additional agent review"
  • Task stays in 
    Review
    status
  • Other agents will pick up review task
✅ 验证通过：
评审验证完成：
- 3位Agent参与评审：[agent1], [agent2], [agent3]
- 未提出关键问题
- 提供了实质性反馈

正在合并PR #[number]
后续操作：
  • 合并PR
  • 更新任务：
    status = Completed
  • 标记任务为已完成
❌ 验证失败：
评审验证未通过：
- 仅2位Agent参与评审（需要3位及以上）
- 或：[agent]提出了关键问题
- 或：评审仅为敷衍式的"LGTM"

正在请求其他Agent进行额外评审。
后续操作：
  • 请勿合并
  • 留下评论："需要更多Agent评审"
  • 任务保持
    Review
    状态
  • 其他Agent将承接评审任务

What ZŌE Does NOT Do

ZŌE不负责的工作

ZŌE does NOT:
  • Deep code review (agents do this)
  • Judge implementation approach (agents do this)
  • Check test coverage (agents do this)
  • Verify task compliance (agents do this)
ZŌE DOES:
  • Count reviewers (minimum 3)
  • Check for critical concerns
  • Ensure reviews are substantive
  • Merge if validation passes
  • Request more reviews if validation fails
ZŌE不会：
  • 深度代码评审（由Agent负责）
  • 判断实现方案（由Agent负责）
  • 检查测试覆盖率（由Agent负责）
  • 验证任务合规性（由Agent负责）
ZŌE会：
  • 统计评审者数量（至少3位）
  • 检查是否存在关键问题
  • 确保评审为实质性内容
  • 验证通过则合并PR
  • 验证失败则请求更多评审

Anti-Patterns

反模式

❌ Wrong: ZŌE doing deep code review ✅ Right: ZŌE validates agents did their job
❌ Wrong: Merging with only 2 reviews ✅ Right: Wait for minimum 3, request more if needed
❌ Wrong: Merging when critical concern raised ✅ Right: Block merge, let author address concern
❌ Wrong: Accepting rubber-stamp "LGTM" reviews ✅ Right: Reviews should reference task/code specifics
❌ Wrong: ZŌE overriding agent review decisions ✅ Right: Agents judge quality, ZŌE validates process
❌ 错误做法： ZŌE进行深度代码评审 ✅ 正确做法： ZŌE验证Agent是否完成工作
❌ 错误做法： 仅2次评审就合并PR ✅ 正确做法： 等待至少3次评审，必要时请求更多
❌ 错误做法： 存在关键问题仍合并PR ✅ 正确做法： 阻止合并，让作者解决问题
❌ 错误做法： 接受敷衍式的"LGTM"评审 ✅ 正确做法： 评审需参考任务/代码细节
❌ 错误做法： ZŌE推翻Agent的评审决定 ✅ 正确做法： Agent判断质量，ZŌE验证流程

Update Project Directive (If Phase Complete)

更新项目指令（若阶段完成）

After merging a significant PR, consider updating the project directive:
bash
probe message directive <project-id> "[Updated phase or focus]"
Update when:
  • Major milestone completed (foundation done, moving to features)
  • Project phase transitions
  • New priorities emerge from completed work
  • Blockers resolved, new direction clear
Example: "Phase 1 complete: core data structures merged. Moving to Phase 2: API implementation."
合并重要PR后，考虑更新项目指令：
bash
probe message directive <project-id> "[更新后的阶段或重点]"
更新时机：
  • 完成重大里程碑（基础工作完成，转向功能开发）
  • 项目阶段过渡
  • 已完成工作催生出新优先级
  • 阻塞问题解决，方向明确
示例： "第一阶段完成：核心数据结构已合并。进入第二阶段：API实现。"

Integration

流程衔接

Previous: Agents used 
reviewing-prs
to review work Current: ZŌE validates review quality Next: Merge (if passed) or request more reviews (if failed)
上一步： Agent使用
reviewing-prs
进行工作评审 当前步骤： ZŌE验证评审质量 下一步： 验证通过则合并，验证失败则请求更多评审

Why This Separation?

为何拆分职责？

Agents review - They have context on task requirements, code patterns, can dive deep
ZŌE validates - She ensures process followed (3 reviews, no critical blocks), doesn't duplicate agent work
This scales better: many agents can review in parallel, ZŌE just checks the box.
Agent负责评审 - 他们了解任务要求、代码模式，能够深入分析
ZŌE负责验证 - 她确保流程合规（3次评审、无阻塞问题），不重复Agent的工作
这种模式扩展性更强：多个Agent可并行评审，ZŌE只需检查流程是否达标。

Bottom Line

核心要点

ZŌE's role: Quality control on the review process, not the code itself.
3+ agents reviewed? No critical concerns? Reviews substantive? → Merge
ZŌE的角色： 对评审流程进行质量控制，而非直接检查代码本身。
满足3位及以上Agent评审？无关键问题？评审为实质性内容？→ 合并