Enrich code quality review suggestions

[dceoy]

Summary

• require code-quality findings to explain the problem, practical impact, and concrete resolution
• include GitHub suggested-change blocks when a safe single-line replacement is available
• preserve multiline Markdown and fenced code in structured inline review comments
• add a regression test for the richer finding contract

Testing

• .agents/skills/local-qa/scripts/qa.sh

Closes #37

[greptile-apps]

Greptile Summary

This PR strengthens the code-quality review contract.

• Requires findings to separately explain the defect, practical impact, and concrete resolution.
• Adds guidance for safe GitHub suggested-change blocks and preserving multiline Markdown.
• Adds regression assertions covering the enriched reviewer and orchestration instructions.

Confidence Score: 5/5

The PR appears safe to merge with no actionable defects identified.

The updated reviewer and orchestration instructions consistently define the richer Markdown contract, while the regression test verifies the required instructions using the repository's established documentation-testing approach.

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
.opencode/agents/code-quality-reviewer.md	Defines richer actionable finding messages and limits suggested-change blocks to complete, safe replacements.
.opencode/commands/review-pr.md	Instructs the orchestrator to preserve finding Markdown when constructing inline review comments.
tests/validate-opencode.bats	Adds repository-conventional documentation assertions for the richer finding contract.

_{Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "enrich code quality review suggestions" | Re-trigger Greptile}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c4c6b494bd

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode PR Review: 1 inline finding(s).

Review completed.

[opencode-agent]

    The PR review has been successfully submitted and updated.

OpenCode PR Review: 1 inline finding

• Repository: dceoy/opencode-action
• PR: Enrich code quality review suggestions #43 - Enrich code quality review suggestions
• Head SHA: c4c6b49
• Review URL: Enrich code quality review suggestions #43 (review)

One actionable finding from the test-coverage-reviewer was posted inline at tests/validate-opencode.bats:103 noting that the new regression test only greps for prose substrings and does not validate the structural template changes (the |- YAML block scalar, the updated review-pr.md message template, and two of the three required paragraphs in code-quality-reviewer.md), leaving gaps that would allow structural regressions to pass undetected.

github run

[dceoy]

Reviewed current head 7abb69d. One actionable contract inconsistency remains.

[dceoy]

Reviewed current head 2181125e1b54.

No actionable issues found. The rich Markdown contract is consistent between the code-quality reviewer and orchestrator, suggestion blocks are guarded against relocated anchors, the regression assertions cover the structural contract, and the latest CI run passes.