Add reviewbot.py

.gitignore

@@ -47,3 +47,7 @@ dist/
 # Local development notes, tmp
 /pr-*
 /tmp/
+
+# Reviewbot worktrees and generated files
+.worktrees/
+.reviews/

prompts/review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# PR Review Guidelines
+
+## Overview
+You are reviewing a Pull Request for the Databricks CLI. Please conduct a thorough code review following these guidelines.
+
+## Review Checklist
+
+### Code Quality
+- [ ] Code follows the project's style guide and conventions
+- [ ] Functions and variables have clear, descriptive names
+
+### Testing
+- [ ] Appropriate test coverage for new functionality
+- [ ] Tests are clear and test the right behavior
+- [ ] Golden files in acceptance tests are valid and make sense. Any error messages are readable and understandable as a new user.
+
+### Edge Case Analysis
+- [ ] Identify edge cases for the changed code (e.g. empty inputs, nil values, boundary conditions, error paths)
+- [ ] Verify edge cases have acceptance test coverage
+
+### Documentation
+- [ ] Code includes necessary comments for complex logic
+- [ ] Public APIs are documented
+- [ ] README or other docs updated if needed
+
+### Dependencies
+- [ ] Any new dependencies introduced (e.g. Github Actions, go.mod libraries) are from a trusted source, i.e. either a popular public project or trusted entity like Databricks.
+- [ ] All 3rd party Github actions should be pinned to a specific commit commit
+
+### PR metadata
+- [ ] The PR title should be clean and descriptive.
+- [ ] The PR description should provide adequate details about the changes in the PR.
+
+
+## Review Process
+1. **Understand the Context**: Read the PR description, linked issues and the code / changes.
+2. **Review code coverage**: For all changed files / code, ensure that the code being added is adequately tested. Strong preference should be given to end-to-end acceptance tests in acceptance/ over unit tests, unless the change being tested is a well defined and clean function / library.
+3. **Identify gaps in testing / detect bugs (important)** Identify and construct edge cases that are not covered in existing tests. Contruct and run relevant acceptance tests (preferred) and unit tests to ensure these edge cases have a good behavior. Report when missing coverage is detected.
+4. **Ensure adequate documentation**: Non trivial functions / code changes should have the appropriate amount of doc strings, so that's a new visitor to the code can quickly understand what's happening. This is even more important for abstract changes that use reflection for example.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Please provide your review in the following format:
+
+### Summary
+Brief overview of the changes and overall assessment.
+
+### Positive Aspects
+What was done well.
+
+### Issues Found
+List any bugs, errors, or serious concerns. Any edge cases that fail or should be covered.
+
+### Suggestions
+Recommendations for improvement (not blocking).
+
+### Questions
+Any clarifications needed.
+
+## Command reference:
+1. You can run and generate golden files for local acceptance tests by running: go test -timeout 300s -run ^TestAccept/$1$ github.com/databricks/cli/acceptance -update <path-to-test-from-acceptance/> (e.g. selftest)
+2. You can run and generate golden files for cloud acceptance tests by running: deco env run -i -n azure-prod-ucws -- go test -timeout 600s -run ^TestAccept/$1$ github.com/databricks/cli/acceptance -update <path-to-test-from-acceptance/>

tools/publish_review.py

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+import json
+import sys
+
+
+def main():
+    if len(sys.argv) < 2:
+        print("Usage: publish_review.py '<json>'")
+        sys.exit(1)
+
+    review = json.loads(sys.argv[1])
+    with open("/tmp/reviewbot_output.json", "w") as f:
+        json.dump(review, f, indent=2)
+    print("Review saved. Awaiting user confirmation to publish.")
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    main()