@qwen-code/qwen-code 0.15.7-preview.0 → 0.15.7-preview.1

package/bundled/qc-helper/docs/features/code-review.md

@@ -129,15 +129,15 @@ You can review PRs from other repositories by passing the full URL:
 
 This runs in **lightweight mode** — no worktree, no linter, no build/test, no autofix. The review is based on the diff text only (fetched via GitHub API). PR comments can still be posted if you have write access.
 
-| Capability                                       | Same-repo | Cross-repo                    |
-| ------------------------------------------------ | --------- | ----------------------------- |
+| Capability                                                 | Same-repo | Cross-repo                    |
+| ---------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ----------------------------- |
 | LLM review (Agents 1-6 + verify + iterative reverse audit) | ✅        | ✅                            |
 | Agent 7: Build & test                                      | ✅        | ❌ (no local codebase)        |
-| Deterministic analysis (linter/typecheck)        | ✅        | ❌                            |
-| Cross-file impact analysis                       | ✅        | ❌                            |
-| Autofix                                          | ✅        | ❌                            |
-| PR inline comments                               | ✅        | ✅ (if you have write access) |
-| Incremental review cache                         | ✅        | ❌                            |
+| Deterministic analysis (linter/typecheck)                  | ✅        | ❌                            |
+| Cross-file impact analysis                                 | ✅        | ❌                            |
+| Autofix                                                    | ✅        | ❌                            |
+| PR inline comments                                         | ✅        | ✅ (if you have write access) |
+| Incremental review cache                                   | ✅        | ❌                            |
 
 ## PR Inline Comments
 
@@ -258,13 +258,13 @@ For large diffs (>10 modified symbols), analysis prioritizes functions with sign
 
 The review pipeline uses a bounded number of LLM calls regardless of how many findings are produced:
 
-| Stage                            | LLM calls         | Notes                                                |
-| -------------------------------- | ----------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- |
-| Deterministic analysis (Step 3)  | 0                 | Shell commands only                                  |
-| Review agents (Step 4)           | 9 (or 8)          | Run in parallel; Agent 7 skipped in cross-repo mode  |
-| Batch verification (Step 5)      | 1                 | Single agent verifies all findings at once           |
-| Iterative reverse audit (Step 6) | 1-3               | Loops until "No issues found" or 3-round cap         |
-| **Total**                        | **11-13 (10-12)** | Same-repo: 11-13; cross-repo: 10-12 (no Agent 7)     |
+| Stage                            | LLM calls         | Notes                                               |
+| -------------------------------- | ----------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |
+| Deterministic analysis (Step 3)  | 0                 | Shell commands only                                 |
+| Review agents (Step 4)           | 9 (or 8)          | Run in parallel; Agent 7 skipped in cross-repo mode |
+| Batch verification (Step 5)      | 1                 | Single agent verifies all findings at once          |
+| Iterative reverse audit (Step 6) | 1-3               | Loops until "No issues found" or 3-round cap        |
+| **Total**                        | **11-13 (10-12)** | Same-repo: 11-13; cross-repo: 10-12 (no Agent 7)    |
 
 Most PRs converge to the lower end of the range (1 reverse audit round); the cap prevents runaway cost on pathological cases.
 

package/bundled/review/DESIGN.md

@@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ Forcing the user to confirm-or-decline every time the PR has any Qwen Code histo
 **Priority matters because** a stale or resolved comment that happens to share a `(path, line)` with a new finding is not a real conflict — the underlying code may have changed in the stale case, and the conversation is already closed in the resolved case. Without priority, the line-based check would fire false-positive prompts on those.
 
 **Trade-off:**
+
 - ✅ Common case (re-running /review on a PR after a few new commits) no longer prompts unnecessarily.
 - ✅ The terminal log keeps the user informed about what was skipped, so transparency is preserved.
 - ❌ Conceptual overlap that doesn't share a line is missed — e.g. a prior comment on line 559 about cache lifecycle and a new comment on line 1352 about cache lifecycle would be classified `No conflict`. Line-based heuristics cannot detect "same root cause, different anchor." If the user wants semantic-overlap detection, they must read the terminal log and the PR comments themselves.
@@ -144,6 +145,7 @@ Line-based classification was chosen because it's deterministic, cheap, and catc
 **Why this stacks with self-PR downgrade:** a self-authored PR with red CI hits **both** downgrade rules. The event is `COMMENT` either way, so stacking is operationally a no-op — but the body should mention both reasons so a future maintainer reading the review knows why an LLM that found no Critical issues did not approve.
 
 **Trade-off:**
+
 - ✅ No more "LLM approved while CI is red" embarrassments.
 - ✅ Reviewer's substantive work (inline comments) is preserved.
 - ❌ Adds two extra API calls (`check-runs` + `statuses`) per APPROVE-bound submit; only relevant for the `APPROVE` path so the cost is negligible.

package/bundled/review/SKILL.md

@@ -117,12 +117,12 @@ Extract the list of changed files from the diff output. For local uncommitted re
 
    Tools currently covered:
 
-   | Language | Tools |
-   |---|---|
-   | TypeScript / JavaScript | `tsc --noEmit --incremental` (typecheck), `eslint --format=json` (linter, changed files only) |
-   | Python | `ruff check --output-format=json` (linter, changed files only) |
-   | Rust | `cargo clippy --message-format=json` (typecheck — clippy includes compile checks; Agent 7 can skip `cargo build`) |
-   | Go | `go vet ./...` (typecheck — vet includes compile checks; Agent 7 can skip `go build`), `golangci-lint run --out-format=json ./...` (linter) |
+   | Language                | Tools                                                                                                                                       |
+   | ----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+   | TypeScript / JavaScript | `tsc --noEmit --incremental` (typecheck), `eslint --format=json` (linter, changed files only)                                               |
+   | Python                  | `ruff check --output-format=json` (linter, changed files only)                                                                              |
+   | Rust                    | `cargo clippy --message-format=json` (typecheck — clippy includes compile checks; Agent 7 can skip `cargo build`)                           |
+   | Go                      | `go vet ./...` (typecheck — vet includes compile checks; Agent 7 can skip `go build`), `golangci-lint run --out-format=json ./...` (linter) |
 
    Read the output JSON. `findings[]` entries are already pre-confirmed (Source: `[typecheck]` for tsc / cargo-clippy / go-vet, `[linter]` for eslint / ruff / golangci-lint, with `severity` mapped to Critical / Nice to have); pass them straight through to Step 5. `toolsRun[]` records exit codes / durations / timeout flags; `toolsSkipped[]` records why a tool didn't run (no config, missing runtime, etc.) — include the skipped tool names in the Step 7 summary.