exp(stick-marker)

[mmiermans]

Sticky-review strategy test. Do not merge.

[github-actions]

🤖 Claude has reviewed this PR — expand after forming your own opinion

Summary

This PR rewrites the Claude PR-review workflow to use an inline prompt with a sticky single-comment delivery, and adds a small JS helper file.

Findings

Security

• Broadened tool scope (Bash(gh api:*)) — claude-review.yml. The allowlist changes from narrowly-scoped commands to gh api:*, which permits any authenticated GitHub API call (with issues: write + pull-requests: write). Combined with the fact that the model ingests attacker-influenceable content via gh pr diff, a prompt-injection payload in a PR diff could induce arbitrary write API calls. The fork-PR guard (head.repo.full_name == github.repository) limits this to same-repo branches, but that still includes any contributor with push access. Consider keeping the API surface narrow (e.g. only the specific comment endpoints needed) rather than gh api:*.

• Removed prompt-injection mitigation — the previous config used include_comments_by_actor: "mmiermans" to keep untrusted comments out of context. The new prompt only runs gh pr diff (not gh pr view), so PR comments aren't loaded — good — but the diff content itself is untrusted and is now paired with a much broader tool allowlist (see above). Worth a comment in the workflow documenting this trust boundary.

• Removed id-token: write — OIDC was previously used for Claude GitHub App auth. Auth now relies on anthropic_api_key + github.token. This appears intentional, but confirm the App-based path is no longer required.

Bug / Quality

• webclient/resources/js/exp-stick-marker.js — pct(part, total) divides without guarding total === 0, returning Infinity/NaN. The inline comment even acknowledges this. Either guard it (return total === 0 ? 0 : (part / total) * 100;) or remove the file.

• Dead code — exp-stick-marker.js is not referenced by any JS/HTML in the repo. If it's experimental scaffolding it should not land on the main branch; if it's intended for use, wire it up and add a test.

Tests / Docs

• No tests accompany the new helper. The workflow's inline prompt removed the explanatory comments that the previous version had (e.g. why gh pr view is excluded); re-adding brief rationale comments would preserve that context.