Repository navigation
feat(web): drag a linked pull request into the composer as a context …
Effect Service Conventions: All clear
All clear
Details
Warning
- Invalid effort level "max" in front matter. Fell back to "low". Valid values are: low, medium, high.
Note
Your check run agent prompt is: .macroscope/check-run-agents/effect-service-conventions.md
More information about how Check Run Agents work can be found in our Help Center.
Reviewed all 1 changed files (no prior completed review)
🔍 Agent activity — 16 tool calls
1. browse_code — apps/web/src/components/chat/composerMentionDrag.ts
💭 Clarifying TypeScript conventions I’m considering when conventions apply in TypeScript, especially regarding the Effect service and adding server behavior. The note says it’s when either of those occurs. There’s also an imports rule for explicit flags, particularly for importing the bare effect. That seems to apply to the recent TypeScript changes. I might suggest replacing the line 3 with two imports instead. Let’s get this clear and ensure it follows the conventions!
2. modify_pr — Submitted review with 1 inline comment
3. browse_code — Check whether apps/web/src/components/chat/composerMentionDrag.ts newly imports any Effect service, adds server behavior, or has any other Effect service convention implications beyond its named imports from bare effect. Brief answer.
4. browse_code — docs/internals/effect-services.md
5. browse_code — Confirm whether repository convention check enforces Effect subpath namespace imports in client-side files that only use Schema and Option, based on .macroscope/check-run-agents/effect-service-conventions.md. Answer briefly.
6. browse_code — Find GraphQL node ID of review comment just posted on PR 20102 apps/web/src/components/chat/composerMentionDrag.ts line 3, if available in repository context.
💭 Considering comment corrections I'm wondering if posting a correction for an issue comment would just create more clutter. I think that if I have an existing incorrect review, it's important to clarify it with a follow-up comment. However, I noticed that the tool can't access the comment ID needed for this correction. So, I’ll definitely need to find another way to address the issue accurately. Let's think about how to work around this!
7. modify_pr — Correction to my inline review comment on composerMentionDrag.ts: this client-side drag helper neither consumes an Effect service nor adds server behavior, so the Effect service conventions check does not apply to its import. Please disregard that suggestion; it is not a finding for this check.
8. browse_code — Are there any changed in-scope files besides composerMentionDrag.ts for this check? Diff supplied says 3 others outside scope. Does this changed file qualify under opening applicability statement?
9. browse_code — .macroscope/check-run-agents/effect-service-conventions.md
10. browse_code — Can you find numeric GitHub PR review comment ID for Macroscope review on PR #20102 at composerMentionDrag.ts line 3? Only answer if accessible.
11. browse_code — Summarize precise scope of convention check in .macroscope/check-run-agents/effect-service-conventions.md: Does bare effect import rule apply if PR changes only browser code with no Effect service?
12. browse_code — No further analysis needed.
13. browse_code — Does the file composerMentionDrag.ts contain server behavior? concise.
14. browse_code — Is a PullRequestContextMetadata schema an Effect service? yes/no.
15. browse_code — Confirm the check scope excludes schema-only client changes.
16. browse_code — No question.
Agent Credits: 42 credits
Token usage: 141 uncached input · 467,806 cache-read input · 104,499 cache-write input · 3,685 output
Agent Credits may also include non-token charges from external tools such as web research.