claude-rules-review.yml

# Weekly review of AGENTS.md and rules/ to ensure documentation stays
# current, valuable, and cost-effective. Uses Claude Code to audit existing
# rules and propose improvements.
#
# Runs every Monday at 5:00 AM PST = 13:00 UTC (PST is UTC-8)
# Can be triggered manually via workflow_dispatch for testing.

name: Claude Rules Review

on:
  schedule:
    # Every Monday at 5:00 AM PST = 13:00 UTC (PST is UTC-8)
    - cron: "0 13 * * 1"
  workflow_dispatch:

jobs:
  review-rules:
    environment: ai-bots
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    timeout-minutes: 30
    permissions:
      contents: read
      issues: write
    steps:
      - name: Create GitHub App token
        id: app-token
        uses: actions/create-github-app-token@v2
        with:
          app-id: ${{ vars.DYAD_GITHUB_APP_ID }}
          private-key: ${{ secrets.DYAD_GITHUB_APP_PRIVATE_KEY }}
          permission-issues: write

      - name: Checkout repository
        uses: actions/checkout@v4
        with:
          fetch-depth: 200

      - name: Review AGENTS.md and rules/
        uses: anthropics/claude-code-action@v1
        env:
          CLAUDE_CODE_MAX_OUTPUT_TOKENS: 48000
        with:
          claude_code_oauth_token: ${{ secrets.CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN }}
          github_token: ${{ steps.app-token.outputs.token }}
          display_report: true
          direct: true
          allowed_tools: "Read,Glob,Grep,Bash(git log:*),Bash(gh issue create:*),Bash(gh issue list:*),Bash(gh issue close:*),Bash(gh label:*)"
          claude_args: --model claude-opus-4-6
          prompt: |
            # Rules Documentation Review Agent

            ## Context

            You are reviewing the repository's agent guidance documentation to ensure it remains valuable, up-to-date, and worth the token cost of including in context windows.

            ## Files to Review

            1. `AGENTS.md` - Main repository agent guide
            2. All files in `rules/` directory - Domain-specific guidance

            ## Review Criteria

            For each rule/section, evaluate:

            ### 1. Relevance Check
            - Does this rule still apply to the current codebase?
            - Has the underlying code/pattern changed since this rule was written?
            - Search the codebase to verify examples still exist and patterns are still used

            ### 2. Value Assessment
            - Is this a recurring pattern that agents encounter frequently, or a one-off edge case?
            - Does the benefit (avoiding mistakes) outweigh the cost (tokens in context)?
            - Would an agent reasonably make this mistake without the rule?

            ### 3. Accuracy Check
            - Are code examples still accurate?
            - Do file paths referenced still exist?
            - Are the described patterns still the recommended approach?

            ### 4. Completeness
            - Are there gaps in coverage for common agent tasks?
            - Are there patterns in the codebase that cause repeated issues but aren't documented?

            ## Tasks

            ### Task 1: Audit Existing Rules

            Review each file and create a structured assessment:

            ```
            ## [filename]

            **Status**: ✅ Keep | ⚠️ Needs Update | ❌ Remove

            **Reasoning**: [1-2 sentences explaining the assessment]

            **Issues Found** (if any):
            - [Specific issue 1]
            - [Specific issue 2]

            **Suggested Changes** (if any):
            - [Change 1]
            - [Change 2]
            ```

            ### Task 2: Identify Missing Rules

            Search the codebase for patterns that could benefit from documentation:

            1. Look at recent commits (last 30 days) for patterns that required fixes
            2. Check for complex patterns that aren't documented
            3. Look for patterns with non-obvious gotchas

            For each proposed new rule:

            ```
            ## Proposed: [Rule Name]

            **File**: rules/[suggested-filename].md

            **Problem it solves**: [What mistake does this prevent?]

            **Evidence**: [Where in the codebase is this pattern used?]

            **Draft content**:
            [Brief outline of what the rule would cover]
            ```

            ### Task 3: Create GitHub Issue

            After completing your review, create a single GitHub issue summarizing your findings.

            First, close any previous rules review issues to avoid duplicates:

            ```bash
            gh issue list --label agent-review --state open --json number --jq '.[].number' | xargs -r -I{} gh issue close {} --comment "Closing in favor of new weekly review."
            ```

            Then, ensure the required labels exist:

            ```bash
            gh label create documentation --force 2>/dev/null || true
            gh label create agent-review --force 2>/dev/null || true
            ```

            Then create the issue:

            ```bash
            gh issue create --title "Weekly Rules Review: [Date]" --body "..." --label documentation --label agent-review
            ```

            The issue should include:
            - Summary of rules reviewed
            - Rules recommended for removal (with reasoning)
            - Rules that need updates (with specific changes)
            - Proposed new rules (with brief descriptions)
            - Overall health assessment of the documentation

            ## Guidelines

            - Be concise in your assessments
            - Only recommend removal if the rule is truly outdated or low-value
            - Prioritize high-impact updates over minor tweaks
            - When proposing new rules, focus on patterns that cause repeated issues
            - Include evidence from the codebase to support your recommendations