tessl/code-review-setup
Install Tessl Code Review into a GitHub repository. Inspects the repository's existing workflows and any Code Review caller already present, asks the two setup questions (when reviews run, and whether findings block the merge), then writes or updates a thin caller workflow that invokes the Tessl Code Review Action. Use when someone wants to add, set up, enable, configure, update, or remove Tessl Code Review, AI code review, or automated pull-request review in a repository, or asks to switch it between advisory and gate mode.
94
92%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
97%
1.40xAverage score across 5 eval scenarios
Low
Low-risk findings worth noting
Evaluation results
100%
46%Add a blocking Tessl Code Review gate, invoked on request only
Install the caller workflow in gate mode with manual-only invocation, and explain the enforcement prerequisites
Caller workflow created
100%
100%
No automatic pull_request trigger
100%
100%
Both manual invocation paths present
100%
100%
Dispatch accepts a pull-request number
66%
100%
Mention guard
28%
100%
Gate mode selected via the Action input
0%
100%
No bespoke gating logic
100%
100%
Permissions block grants what the Action needs
55%
100%
Pinned to the supplied release SHA
100%
100%
Summary requires the Action's own check by name
20%
100%
Summary states that the gate holds on this cadence
25%
100%
Summary names the Actions approval setting
14%
100%
Summary describes the refused-review fallback
0%
100%
Summary states the unblocking contract
66%
100%
100%
35%Add Tessl Code Review to this repository
Fresh install of the Code Review caller workflow with the default cadence in advisory mode
Caller workflow created
100%
100%
Existing CI workflow untouched
100%
100%
Ready-once pull_request trigger
75%
100%
Mention trigger present
100%
100%
Mention guard restricts to pull-request comments
100%
100%
Mention guard matches the Action's mention token
0%
100%
Permissions block grants what the Action needs
25%
100%
Per-pull-request concurrency
0%
100%
Concurrency does not cancel in progress
0%
100%
Advisory mode
100%
100%
Token wired from the repository secret
50%
100%
Pinned to the supplied release SHA
100%
100%
pr-number supplied for non-pull-request events
0%
100%
No second execution path
100%
100%
Summary states the invocation contract
50%
100%
Summary covers secret, permissions, update, and removal
66%
100%
Summary names the release behind the pin
100%
100%
100%
9%Confirm the Code Review setup, and write down how to undo it
Re-run setup against a caller that already matches the requested configuration, and document how to remove the setup later
Caller workflow unchanged
100%
100%
No second caller created
100%
100%
Summary reports that nothing changed
100%
100%
Summary describes the installed contract
100%
100%
Removal deletes the caller workflow
100%
100%
Removal covers the repository secret
100%
100%
Removal names the required check to drop
57%
100%
Removal ordering explained
100%
100%
Removal states what it does not undo
40%
100%
No unrequested changes
100%
100%
100%
44%Move Code Review to every-commit reviews in this repository
Two workflows already call the Code Review Action, one of them on an unsafe trigger. The conflict must be surfaced for a human decision rather than resolved by overwriting
Both existing workflows left untouched
100%
100%
No third caller added
100%
100%
Proposal produced instead of an edit
100%
100%
Conflict identified
41%
100%
Conflict is put to a human rather than resolved
20%
100%
One caller per repository is the target state
37%
100%
pull_request_target named as unsafe
25%
100%
Moving pin named
60%
100%
Missing checks permission named for the second caller
0%
100%
Requested change described concretely
40%
100%
87%
5%Move the existing Code Review setup to every-commit reviews
Update an existing Code Review caller in place: change cadence and pinned revision while preserving user-owned workflow settings
Existing workflow edited in place
100%
100%
Exactly one caller workflow
100%
100%
synchronize trigger added
66%
100%
cancel-in-progress switched on
100%
66%
New pinned revision applied
100%
100%
Self-hosted runner preserved
100%
100%
Timeout preserved
100%
100%
Job name preserved
100%
100%
Output-consuming step preserved
100%
100%
Mode unchanged
100%
100%
Missing checks permission added
0%
0%
Mention trigger retained
100%
100%
Summary explains why superseding is safe
37%
100%
Summary distinguishes changed from preserved
66%
66%
- Evaluated
- Agent
- Claude Code
- Model
- Claude Sonnet 4.6