Topic · Updated June 19, 2026
Git Code Review Workflows
Short answer
A git code review workflow is a repeatable way for a coding agent to inspect a repository change, summarize risk, and suggest tests without automatically changing production code. Trusted Workflows treats the best examples as source-linked review patterns: they expose the GitHub repository, license signal, compatible agents, risk surface, and human approval boundary. Start with read-only PR review and CI triage before allowing file writes, comments, labels, or merges.
Git code review workflows turn repository diffs, CI logs, and reviewer context into structured review notes. The safest early pattern is read-only: inspect the source, identify risky files, recommend tests, and stop before commits, labels, comments, or merges.
Who this topic helps
- Developers using agents to review pull requests.
- Small teams comparing PR review automation.
- Reviewers checking CI logs and risky code changes before merge.
Start here
Use this page as a focused path into Workflow Trust. It groups source-visible workflow reviews, practical guides, and risk notes around one search intent instead of forcing readers through the full catalog first.
Related workflow reviews
GitHub source · review page Codex Code Review Source Pattern
openai/codex · 93 trust Claude Code Action Code Review Source Pattern
anthropics/claude-code-action · 94 trust reviewdog Code Review Source Pattern
reviewdog/reviewdog · 86 trust Super-Linter Code Review Source Pattern
github/super-linter · 87 trust opencode Code Review Source Pattern
sst/opencode · 95 trust
Related guides
Risk notes
- Diffs, issue text, and CI logs are untrusted inputs.
- Generated review comments should not count as approval.
- File writes, labels, merges, and release actions should stay human-gated.
Related questions
- What is a git code review workflow?
- Which GitHub repositories show AI PR review workflows?
- How should Codex or Claude Code review a pull request safely?
Common search phrases
git code review workflow, AI PR review workflow, Codex pull request review, Claude Code review workflow
FAQ
What should a git code review workflow output?
It should output a concise review report, risk list, suggested tests, and handoff notes that a human reviewer can audit.
Should an agent automatically merge after review?
No. Early workflows should stay read-only and require human approval for merge, label, release, or file-write actions.