Add iterate-plan-nt.md #845
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed everything up to ccbc754 in 1 minute and 46 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
95lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
3draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. .claude/commands/describe_pr_nt.md:48
- Draft comment:
Consider rewording 'ultrathink' to a more formal term (e.g., 'analyze') for better clarity and professionalism. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:40%<= threshold50%None
2. .claude/commands/describe_pr_nt.md:7
- Draft comment:
The overall guide is comprehensive. Consider adding a brief table of contents or summary at the beginning to enhance navigability given the detailed step-by-step sections. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%None
3. .claude/commands/describe_pr_nt.md:48
- Draft comment:
Typographical suggestion: The word 'ultrathink' in this line seems unusual. Consider revising it to something like 'think thoroughly' for clarity. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50% The word "ultrathink" is indeed unusual and not a standard English word. However, looking at the context, this appears to be a command/instruction file for an AI assistant (Claude), given the .claude/commands/ directory structure. The word "ultrathink" might be intentional jargon or a specific instruction term for the AI. The comment is about a change (new file addition), so it passes that test. However, the rules state I should not comment on things that are "obvious or unimportant" and should only comment if there's "clearly a code change required." A typo in documentation/instructions could be considered minor, but it could also affect clarity. The key question is: is this clearly wrong, or could "ultrathink" be intentional? Given the AI context, it might be intentional to emphasize deep thinking. I might be overthinking this. Even if "ultrathink" is intentional, it's still unclear and could confuse users or the AI system. The comment provides a clear, actionable suggestion that improves clarity. However, the rules say not to make comments that are "obvious or unimportant" - is a single word choice in documentation important enough? While the word choice might seem minor, clarity in instruction files is important, especially for AI commands. However, without strong evidence that "ultrathink" is definitely wrong (it could be intentional jargon), and given that this is a stylistic/clarity suggestion rather than a functional bug, this falls into the category of comments that require me to see "STRONG EVIDENCE" that it's correct. I don't have strong evidence that "ultrathink" is wrong - it could be intentional. This comment is a stylistic suggestion about word choice in a documentation file. While it may improve clarity, there's no strong evidence that "ultrathink" is definitively wrong - it could be intentional jargon for AI instructions. According to the rules requiring strong evidence to keep comments, and the rule against obvious/unimportant comments, this should be deleted.
Workflow ID: wflow_O2Nv9L1o3WzfBWXz
You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.
dexhorthy
approved these changes
Nov 3, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What problem(s) was I solving?
What user-facing changes did I ship?
How I implemented it
How to verify it
make check testpassesDescription for the changelog
A picture of a cute animal (not mandatory but encouraged)
Important
Adds
describe_pr_nt.mdto.claude/commands/for generating comprehensive PR descriptions using a standard template.describe_pr_nt.mdto.claude/commands/.This description was created by
for ccbc754. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.