Skip to content

Conversation

@MegaRedHand
Copy link
Contributor

@MegaRedHand MegaRedHand commented Jan 28, 2026

This PR adds Claude, ChatGPT, and Kimi agents as reviewers of each PR, via GitHub actions. It also enables them to respond to any @claude, @chatgpt, or @Kimi in issues or PR comments.

Based on lambdaclass/ethrex#6054

- Extract shared review prompt to .github/prompts/pr_review.md
- Update all workflows to use consensus-layer terminology instead of execution-layer
- Add @chatgpt trigger to ChatGPT workflow (issue_comment + conditional)
- Add @Kimi trigger to Kimi workflow (issue_comment + pull_request_review_comment + conditional)
- Pin ChatGPT action to specific commit (6fdbaeafc6f9e0eaebb844f8cfafff67cb2947f0)
- Replace ethrex references with ethlambda across all workflows
- Update Ethereum-specific considerations to focus on:
  * Fork choice (LMD GHOST / 3SF-mini) correctness
  * Attestation processing and validation
  * Justification and finalization logic
  * State transition functions (process_slots, process_block)
  * XMSS signature verification and aggregation
  * SSZ encoding/decoding correctness
@github-actions
Copy link

Kimi AI Code Review

Error: KIMI_API_KEY secret is not set


Automated review by Kimi (Moonshot AI)

@github-actions
Copy link

Seems you are using me but didn't get OPENAI_API_KEY seted in Variables/Secrets for this repo. you could follow readme for more information

The actual action doesn't receive parameters normally, it fetches
everything from its env
Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code review by ChatGPT


permissions:
contents: read
pull-requests: write

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The changes made in the provided snippet appear to be focused on setting environment variables and updating the way parameters are passed to the model for a jobs setup. Here are my comments on the modifications and overall review guidelines:

  • Code Correctness & Potential Bugs: The change simplifies and standardizes the input parameters for the jobs setup. However, ensure that the case sensitivity of environment variable names like MODEL and PROMPT is handled correctly wherever they are used in other parts of the code.

  • Security Vulnerabilities: Ensure the OPENAI_API_KEY is securely handled and not logged or exposed. Always use secrets management best practices to protect sensitive information.

  • Performance Implications: There are no direct performance implications in the changes shown, as these are configuration settings for job execution.

  • Rust Best Practices & Idiomatic Patterns: This section of code does not directly pertain to Rust coding practices but focuses on CI/CD configuration. As such, Rust best practices are not applicable here.

  • Memory Safety & Proper Error Handling: Not applicable for this configuration modification, but ensure in the overall application that secrets and environment variables are not causing any unforeseen memory leaks or unsafe behavior.

  • Code Readability & Maintainability: The refactoring makes parameter names consistent and simplifies the configuration block. This change aids readability.

  • Consensus-layer Considerations: Not directly applicable. Ensure that any changes in the build/test pipeline maintain the integrity of tests related to consensus layer algorithms and logic.

  • SSZ Encoding/Decoding & Others: Ensure all state transition function tests are up-to-date with these config changes to catch any issues early in CI/CD.

Conclusion: While the changes here are minor and seem correct, it's important they are thoroughly tested with the broader application to ensure no environment configuration issues. Additional testing might be necessary beyond what is shown to maintain security and functionality integrity across the system.

@github-actions
Copy link

Kimi AI Code Review

This pull request introduces a new Continuous Integration (CI) workflow to automate code reviews using AI agents ChatGPT, Claude, and Kimi. The changes include adding configuration files for each AI service and the corresponding GitHub Actions workflows to trigger the reviews. Here's a detailed review:

Code Correctness and Potential Bugs

  1. ChatGPT Workflow (pr_review_chatgpt.yaml):

    • The workflow appears to be correctly set up to trigger on pull request events and comments containing @chatgpt.
    • The ChatGPT-CodeReview action is used with the correct parameters, including the PROMPT environment variable.
  2. Claude Workflow (pr_review_claude.yaml):

    • Similar to ChatGPT, this workflow is correctly configured to trigger on relevant events and comments containing @claude.
    • The claude-code-action is used with the appropriate parameters, including the direct_prompt for the review prompt.
  3. Kimi Workflow (pr_review_kimi.yaml):

    • This workflow is also correctly set up to trigger on the specified events and comments containing @kimi.
    • The KIMI_API_KEY is used to authenticate with the Moonshot AI API, and the request body is correctly constructed using jq.

Security Vulnerabilities

  1. Secrets Management:

    • All workflows use GitHub secrets (GITHUB_TOKEN, OPENAI_API_KEY, ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, KIMI_API_KEY) for authentication, which is a secure practice.
    • Ensure that these secrets are set up correctly in the GitHub repository settings and are not exposed in the codebase.
  2. API Usage:

    • The workflows interact with external APIs, which could potentially introduce security risks if not handled correctly.
    • It's important to validate the responses from these APIs to ensure they are as expected and do not contain any malicious content.

Performance Implications

  1. Resource Usage:
    • The workflows run on ubuntu-latest, which should be sufficient for the tasks at hand.
    • The fetch-depth: 0 in the actions/checkout step ensures that the entire repository history is fetched, which might be unnecessary and could impact performance. Consider adjusting this if the full history is not required.

Rust Best Practices and Idiomatic Patterns

  1. Rust Code Review:
    • The review prompt (pr_review.md) is well-structured and covers all the necessary aspects of reviewing Rust code for a blockchain project.
    • The prompt is clear and concise, which is good for guiding the AI agents in providing focused and relevant reviews.

Memory Safety and Proper Error Handling

  1. Error Handling:
    • The Kimi workflow includes error handling for the API response, which is good practice.
    • Consider adding similar error handling for the ChatGPT and Claude workflows to ensure robustness.

Code Readability and Maintainability

  1. Configuration Files:
    • The configuration files (settings.json, pr_review.md) are clear and well-structured.
    • The YAML syntax in the workflows is correct and follows best practices.

Consensus-Layer Considerations

  1. Review Prompt:
    • The review prompt covers all the necessary aspects of consensus-layer code review, including fork choice, attestation processing, and state transition functions.
    • This ensures that the AI agents will focus on the critical aspects of the Ethereum consensus client.

Conclusion

The pull request introduces a comprehensive CI workflow for automated code reviews using AI agents. The setup is correct, secure, and follows best practices. The review prompt is well-structured and covers all necessary aspects of Rust code review for a blockchain project. The only minor suggestion is to consider adjusting the fetch-depth in the actions/checkout step if the full repository history is not required.

Overall, the changes look good and should be merged.


Automated review by Kimi (Moonshot AI)

@github-actions
Copy link

Kimi AI Code Review

This PR introduces several changes related to automating the code review process using AI agents (ChatGPT, Claude, and Kimi). Here are my comments and suggestions:

  1. .github/prompts/pr_review.md

    • This file contains the instructions for the AI agents to perform the code review. The content looks good and covers all the important aspects of reviewing Ethereum consensus client code.
  2. .github/workflows/ci.yml

    • The only change here is updating the actions/checkout action from v4 to v6. This is a minor update and should not affect the functionality. However, it's worth noting that v6 is still in beta, so it might have some issues. It's good to keep an eye on the release notes and upgrade to a stable version when available.
  3. .github/workflows/docker_publish.yaml

    • Similar to the previous file, the only change here is updating the actions/checkout action from v4 to v6. As mentioned earlier, it's a minor update, but keep an eye on the release notes for any potential issues.
  4. .github/workflows/pr_review_chatgpt.yaml

    • This workflow introduces a new AI agent (ChatGPT) for code review. The configuration looks good, but I have a few suggestions:
      • It's using the gpt-4o model, which is quite large and might be expensive to run. Consider using a smaller model if the large model is not necessary for the code review task.
      • The max_tokens is set to 4096, which should be sufficient for most reviews. However, you might need to adjust this value based on the actual output length of the reviews.
  5. .github/workflows/pr_review_claude.yaml

    • This workflow introduces another AI agent (Claude) for code review. The configuration looks good, but I have a few suggestions:
      • The claude-sonnet-4-20250514 model is quite large and might be expensive to run. Consider using a smaller model if the large model is not necessary for the code review task.
      • The max_turns is set to 5, which should be sufficient for most reviews. However, you might need to adjust this value based on the actual output length of the reviews.
  6. .github/workflows/pr_review_kimi.yaml

    • This workflow introduces the third AI agent (Kimi) for code review. The configuration looks good, but I have a few suggestions:
      • The moonshot-v1-128k model is quite large and might be expensive to run. Consider using a smaller model if the large model is not necessary for the code review task.
      • The max_tokens is set to 4096, which should be sufficient for most reviews. However, you might need to adjust this value based on the actual output length of the reviews.
      • The gh pr diff command is used to get the PR diff, but it might be better to use the actions/checkout action and git diff command to get the diff directly from the repository.

Overall, the PR looks good and introduces an interesting approach to automating code reviews using AI agents. However, as mentioned earlier, keep an eye on the release notes for any potential issues with the actions/checkout@v6 action and consider using smaller models for the AI agents if possible.


Automated review by Kimi (Moonshot AI)

Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 👍

@github-actions
Copy link

Kimi AI Code Review

This PR introduces a set of GitHub Actions workflows to automate code reviews using AI agents (ChatGPT, Claude, and Kimi). Here are my detailed comments and suggestions:

  1. .github/workflows/ci.yml

    • The only change here is updating the actions/checkout action from v4 to v6. This is a good practice to keep actions up-to-date.
    • However, it's worth noting that v4 is the latest version of the actions/checkout action. The v6 version doesn't exist, and it seems like a typo. Consider reverting it back to v4 or updating to the latest version if available.
    • Line 21: uses: actions/checkout@v4
  2. .github/workflows/docker_publish.yaml

    • Similar to the previous workflow, update the actions/checkout action from v4 to v6. As mentioned earlier, consider reverting it back to v4 or updating to the latest version.
    • Line 30: uses: actions/checkout@v4
  3. .github/workflows/pr_review_chatgpt.yaml

    • This workflow introduces a new ChatGPT-based code review process.
    • The if condition checks for specific events and mentions of @chatgpt. This is a good way to trigger the workflow only when needed.
    • The ChatGPT-CodeReview action uses the OPENAI_API_KEY secret. Make sure this secret is set in the repository settings.
    • The MODEL is set to gpt-4o, which is a good choice for code reviews.
    • The max_tokens is set to 4096, which should be sufficient for most reviews.
  4. .github/workflows/pr_review_claude.yaml

    • This workflow introduces a new Claude-based code review process.
    • The if condition checks for specific events and mentions of @claude. This is a good way to trigger the workflow only when needed.
    • The claude-code-action uses the ANTHROPIC_API_KEY secret. Make sure this secret is set in the repository settings.
    • The claude_args include --max-turns 5 and --model claude-sonnet-4-20250514, which are reasonable choices for code reviews.
  5. .github/workflows/pr_review_kimi.yaml

    • This workflow introduces a new Kimi-based code review process.
    • The if condition checks for specific events and mentions of @kimi. This is a good way to trigger the workflow only when needed.
    • The KIMI_API_KEY secret is used, so make sure it's set in the repository settings.
    • The max_tokens is set to 4096, which should be sufficient for most reviews.
  6. CLAUDE.md

    • This file provides a development guide for ethlambda. It's well-structured and covers important aspects like codebase structure, key architecture patterns, development workflow, and external dependencies.
    • Consider adding a section on "Security Considerations" to highlight any potential security risks and mitigations in the codebase.

Overall, this PR introduces a comprehensive set of AI-based code review workflows that should help improve code quality and catch potential issues early on. The workflows are well-structured and use appropriate triggers and actions. A few minor corrections are needed, as mentioned above.

One suggestion for improvement is to add a section on "Security Considerations" in the CLAUDE.md file to document any known security risks and mitigations in the codebase. This would help developers and reviewers be more aware of potential security issues.

Thank you for your work on this PR! It's an important step towards improving the code review process for ethlambda.


Automated review by Kimi (Moonshot AI)

Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code review by ChatGPT


- zeam (Zig): <https://github.com/blockblaz/zeam>
- ream (Rust): <https://github.com/ReamLabs/ream>
- qlean (C++): <https://github.com/qdrvm/qlean-mini>

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The development guide for ethlambda provides a comprehensive overview of the architecture, workflow, and testing protocols, but there are some areas where improvements or clarifications might be helpful.

Concerns & Suggestions:

  1. Code Correctness & Bugs:

    • While the guide outlines the codebase structure and important patterns, it does not provide specific code snippets or examples that directly show how critical functions like process_slots, process_block, or signature verification are implemented. Without these, it's challenging to assess correctness directly from the documentation. Ensure that critical paths are tested extensively with unit tests and integration tests.
  2. Security Vulnerabilities:

    • The document outlines critical external dependencies like XMSS signature and SSZ encoding. Verify that these dependencies are up-to-date and have no known vulnerabilities. The mention of skip-signature-verification for tests indicates a potential area of concern if used improperly in production.
  3. Performance Implications:

    • The note about using skip-signature-verification for performance highlights that signature operations are a bottleneck. Consider optimizing crypto operations or using concurrent processing where possible.
    • The networking section lists parameters such as mesh size and heartbeat interval for gossipsub. Ensure these settings are tuned based on realistic network tests to avoid network congestion or inefficiencies.
  4. Rust Best Practices:

    • The document does not directly reference coding practices in Rust, such as handling lifetimes, avoiding unnecessary clones, and using pattern matching effectively. Ensure the code adheres to Rust's best practices and idiomatic usage to prevent common errors.
  5. Memory Safety & Error Handling:

    • There is no mention of how errors are handled across the system. Consider using Rust's Result and Option types effectively and provide guidelines or patterns on error propagation and handling.
    • Ensure memory safety by avoiding unsafe code unless absolutely necessary and thoroughly reviewed.
  6. Code Readability & Maintainability:

    • The documentation is well-organized but primarily focuses on high-level architecture and testing rather than code-level conventions and patterns. Including a style guide or conventions section could improve maintainability.
  7. Consensus Layer Considerations:

    • Ensure that the fork choice rule implementations and state transitions match the latest specifications. Specific examples of LMD GHOST or 3SF-mini implementations in the documentation would improve clarity.
    • Justification and finalization logic should be explicitly documented with examples or pseudocode for clarity.

Overall, while the document provides a good high-level understanding of the ethlambda architecture, it lacks specifics in areas that directly impact code quality and security. Addressing these concerns can make the project more robust against bugs and vulnerabilities.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We'll work on these in another PR. baby steps

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants