Document code review action outputs and usage examples

[vim-zz]

✨ PR Description

Purpose: Add documentation for code review action outputs and demonstrate usage via context variables in automation workflows.
Main changes:

• Documented code-review action output parameters with the new is_LGTM boolean field
• Added examples of conditional automation workflows using action output context variables
• Created new 'actions' context variable reference section with syntax guidelines and usage examples

Generated by LinearB AI and added by gitStream.
_{AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies. Please verify before using.
💡 Tip: You can customize your AI Description using Guidelines Learn how}

[orca-security-us]

Orca Security Scan Summary

Status	Check	Issues by priority
Passed	Infrastructure as Code	0   0   0   0	View in Orca
Passed	SAST	0   0   0   0	View in Orca
Passed	Secrets	0   0   0   0	View in Orca
Passed	Vulnerabilities	0   0   0   0	View in Orca

[gitstream-cm]

✨ PR Review

LGTM

Generated by LinearB AI and added by gitStream.
_{AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies. Please verify before using.
💡 Tip: You can customize your AI Review using Guidelines Learn how}

[MishaKav]

i think we should add some note, that if the automation name with - and not _, so the syntax shoudl be changed a little

{{ actions.["ai-code-review"].outputs.is_LGTM }}

Review dismissed

[vim-zz]

@MishaKav is it {{ actions["ai-code-review"].outputs.is_LGTM }} without the dot?

[gitstream-cm]

✨ PR Review

The PR adds comprehensive documentation for action outputs and usage examples. The documentation is functional and provides clear guidance on using the is_LGTM output with helpful examples.

1 issues detected:

🧾 Readability - The same format specification appears twice within a few lines, reducing documentation clarity. 🛠️

Details: The format for accessing action outputs (actions.<automation_id>.outputs.<output_name>) is stated twice in lines 305 and 307, making the documentation unnecessarily redundant and less concise for readers.
File: docs/automation-actions.md (307-307)
_{🛠️ A suggested code correction is included in the review comments.}

Generated by LinearB AI and added by gitStream.
_{AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies. Please verify before using.
💡 Tip: You can customize your AI Review using Guidelines Learn how}

[gitstream-cm]

🧾 Readability - Redundant Format: Remove line 307 as the format specification is already provided in line 305. The detailed component explanation in lines 309-310 can follow directly after the initial format introduction.

Suggested change

Use the syntax: `actions.<automation_id>.outputs.<output_name>`

Is this review accurate? Use 👍 or 👎 to rate it

If you want to tell us more, use /gs feedback e.g. /gs feedback this review doesn't make sense, I disagree, and it keeps repeating over and over

[gitstream-cm]

✨ PR Review

LGTM

Generated by LinearB AI and added by gitStream.
_{AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies. Please verify before using.
💡 Tip: You can customize your AI Review using Guidelines Learn how}

[MishaKav]

@MishaKav is it {{ actions["ai-code-review"].outputs.is_LGTM }} without the dot?
Yes, this is the jinja2 syntax

[MishaKav]

LG