Evidence the run may read
- Patch and changed-file list
- Repository guidance
- Test and ownership metadata
production blueprint · engineering
Pull request risk review agent blueprint.
Review a proposed change against its tests, ownership boundaries, and operational risk before a maintainer merges it.
Search intent: AI agent for pull request risk review
Published by a2a cloudProduct-source methodology →
01 · the contract
Start from a bounded job, not a blank chat box.
trigger
A pull request is marked ready for review.
owner
engineering owner
agent stops at
A repository maintainer decides whether to merge or request changes.
KPI · increase
reviewed defects found before merge (defects). Count accepted findings resolved before merge.
outputs
Artifacts the run must produce
- Risk-ranked findings
- Missing-test checklist
- Merge recommendation
02 · topology
Small specialists. Named handoffs. One accountable decision.
Each stage produces an artifact another stage can inspect. The final node is a person, not an autonomous write to an external system.
- 01
intake
Validate and normalize the pull request risk review inputs.
- 02
change analyst
Produce the risk-ranked findings.
- 03
test reviewer
Produce the missing-test checklist.
- 04
maintainer reviewer
Challenge the pull request risk review result and prepare an approval packet.
- 05
engineering owner
A repository maintainer decides whether to merge or request changes.
intake→ validated input packet →change-analyst
change-analyst→ Risk-ranked findings →test-reviewer
test-reviewer→ Missing-test checklist →maintainer-reviewer
maintainer-reviewer→ approval packet with evidence references →human-approver
03 · authority
Grant the run only what this case needs.
Source material is read-only. Drafts land in a case-specific output path. Tools may read or propose; the human gate owns the external write.
case inputs
workspace/engineering/pull-request-risk-review/inputs/**Read only the evidence attached to this workflow instance.
case outputs
workspace/engineering/pull-request-risk-review/outputs/**Write drafts and evidence artifacts without modifying source records.
approved tools
engineering:pull-request-risk-review:read-or-proposeInvoke only tools explicitly granted for this run; external writes remain gated.
04 · implementation
A private, bounded starting manifest.
The blueprint starts private, caps its DAG, disables replanning, and exposes no public endpoint. Add only the tools and data adapters this workflow has approved.
a2a.yamlsafe starting point
name: engineering-pull-request-risk-review
version: 0.1.0
entrypoint: agent:BlueprintAgent
expose:
public: false
composition:
planning: deterministic_dag
max_nodes: 6
max_parallel: 1
max_replans: 005 · acceptance test
Pass only with evidence.
- 01
Evidence traceability
Every material conclusion cites an input artifact or a scoped tool result from this run.
- 02
Every blocking finding points to a changed line, violated invariant, or missing verification step.
Every blocking finding points to a changed line, violated invariant, or missing verification step.
- 03
Approval boundary
The run stops at a proposal and records the human decision before any external side effect.
failure containment
Stop small. Preserve the evidence.
The patch is too large or generated context omits a dependency required for review.
Containment: Return a partial result with unresolved items; do not broaden scope or perform an external write.
Operator: Attach the missing evidence, narrow the brief, or explicitly approve a new scoped run.
A required input or tool grant is unavailable.
Containment: Stop the affected branch and preserve completed artifacts in the case output workspace.
Operator: Grant only the missing resource or continue with that branch marked out of scope.
06 · proof
Sign the run facts. Keep money in the billing ledger.
Current platform receipts sign caller identity or classification, skill, bounded input evidence, verified grant IDs when present, outcome or result preview, and timing. Optional file, tool, artifact, handoff, evaluation, and review fields require separate instrumentation and are not populated by default. Price, fees, payouts, and later human approvals remain separate platform records.
The example uses only fields populated by the current platform sealing paths. It is illustrative, not a record of a real customer run.
ExecutionReceipt · selected fieldsEd25519 token
{
"receipt_id": "rcpt_01J...",
"schema_version": 1,
"agent_name": "engineering-pull-request-risk-review",
"caller": "user:workflow-owner",
"task_id": "case_pull_request_risk_review",
"skill_name": "pull_request_risk_review",
"input_hash": "4d7c...9a2f",
"grant_ids": [
"grt_case_inputs",
"grt_tool_propose"
],
"status": "ok",
"result_preview": "Output prepared: Risk-ranked findings. Human decision remains separate.",
"elapsed_ms": 4218
}related blueprints
Keep the operating model consistent.
Engineering
Production incident triage
Correlate an alert with deploy and service evidence, rank hypotheses, and hand an incident commander a bounded action packet.
Engineering
Flaky test diagnosis
Cluster repeated failures, isolate timing or state signals, and propose the smallest experiment that can confirm the cause.
Engineering
API contract change review
Compare an API change to the prior contract, identify affected consumers, and prepare a compatibility decision for an owner.
put the pattern to work
Start private. Scope the authority. Require the decision.
Deploy the workflow as a bounded internal agent, verify its outputs and the receipt fields actually emitted, then expand only the scopes your acceptance test proves it needs.