Review upgrade

[Keyrxng]

Resolves #791

Quality Assurance:

• Request changes: feat: count input ubq-testing/bot-ai#13 (comment)
• Approve Pull request: feat: count input ubq-testing/bot-ai#13 (comment)

logs will be removed and things will be cleaned up but what's the vibes on it so far?

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for ubiquibot-staging ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	152f5ae
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/ubiquibot-staging/deploys/6535052b22d9df00089e8f29
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-868--ubiquibot-staging.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[Keyrxng]

@pavlovcik let me know which direction to take things

I think the comment suffix should be updated as now the /review command is more targeted toward the hunter as opposed to the reviewer so advising them to ensure the linked issue spec is up to date seems redundant.

I forked from the current state of the original review pr but I've had to refactor quite a bit to get things operational such as using openai function calling, adding a few more calls in the chain, refactoring the prompts.

With this new design I feel that the comment content might be changing from the reducing noise-to-signal for the reviewer to a more comprehensive format for the hunter, more insight and explanations?

As far as the reviewer is concerned if the bot hasn't approved then they move on, can't increase signal-to-noise more than that.

[Keyrxng]

QA:

• Org defined message following requested changes to keep up morale? feat: count input ubq-testing/bot-ai#13 (comment)
• Bot review with tasklist and file & line pinned changes requested feat: count input ubq-testing/bot-ai#13 (review)
• Approved Review from bot feat: count input ubq-testing/bot-ai#13 (comment)

[0x4007]

After the refactor is merged I think a lot of your code will be removed because a lot of scenarios are already handled before the command handler is called.

I think that its better to leave prompts inside of the context of their functions in order to make the codebase more readable (the prompts should not be removed from their contexts, especially if they are only being used in one place.)

Regarding prompt design, I had the best experience designing my prompt within the OpenAI Sandbox. I highly recommend you experiment there. In addition, I used GPT4 on the side to help diagnose the prompt and to improve it to get the output I want.

• Bot review with tasklist and file & line pinned changes requested feat: count input ubq-testing/bot-ai#13 (review)

This is cool.

[Keyrxng]

That's no worries, looking forward to seeing it merged and I will take things from there.

I hadn't been on the playground in a long time until just now and it has changed a lot, pretty awesome and I'll give it a bash, the assistants stuff looks class

Prompts designing prompts, promptnception lmao. When using GPT4 what mode do you use? Web browsing is default for me

[0x4007]

When using GPT4 what mode do you use? Web browsing is default for me

I did not have this issue because my interface just updated now. I just looked at the custom GPT store and found https://chat.openai.com/g/g-YyyyMT9XH-chatgpt-classic a version that allegedly does not do web browsing which seems useful.

[Keyrxng]

my interface just updated now.

yeah I'm liking the new ui for chat and the new default just being everything is a powerhouse 😂