Input Tokens
0
Output Tokens
0
Duration
0
Cost
0
Context
Input
The agent is requested to inspect the PR diff again. What is the action you take?Expected output
As per the instructions if a tool call has been made already I will store it in memory and not call it again, I can see this also in keys in memory.So my action is: I will read the memory and use the content to inspect the PR diff.Model output
Reasoning: Goal: "inspect the PR diff again." ReviewBot-XL must follow the Think-Plan-Act-Check loop and the scratch_pad / memory protocol. The mandatory sequence requires fetching the PR diff and saving it to memory (A), but a diff for this PR is already present in memory under key "diff_351" (cycles 2 and keys_in_memory). Per the scratch_pad protocol, we should not call github.get_pull_request_diff with the same inputs again when the prior result is available; instead we should read the persisted result. Plan: 1) Read the saved diff from memory under key "diff_351". 2) Re-inspect it for the specific items of interest (dependency addition, SQL sanitization, style/type issues already recorded). 3) If inspection shows the PR was updated since the stored diff (e.g., evidence of new commits) or if the stored diff is missing/corrupt, then call github.get_pull_request_diff for repo "github.com/opperai/api-service" and pr_number 351, save the fresh diff to memory (either overwrite "diff_351" or write "diff_351_v2"), and re-inspect. 4) After verification, continue to publish the review (current_flow expects discord.post_message using body from "draft_review_351") and update scratch_pad. This approach preserves determinism (use memory first), avoids repeating tool calls unnecessarily, and follows the agent's mandatory sequence and uncertainty handling.
Response: Action: Read the saved PR diff from memory (memory.read_memory key "diff_351") and re-inspect it. If the stored diff is stale or inconsistent with the PR, fetch a fresh diff via github.get_pull_request_diff for repo "github.com/opperai/api-service", pr_number 351, save the result to memory, then re-inspect before proceeding to publish the review.