add llamaindex integration

[LawyZheng]

Important

Add Skyvern integration for LlamaIndex with tools for task management and detailed usage documentation.

• Integration:
  • Adds Skyvern integration for LlamaIndex in skyvern_llamaindex.
  • Provides SkyvernTool class in agent.py and client.py for task management.
• Functionality:
  • Supports running, dispatching, and retrieving tasks using run_task, dispatch_task, and get_task methods.
  • Handles both synchronous and asynchronous task execution.
• Configuration:
  • Adds settings.py for configuration with environment variables support.
  • Configures pyproject.toml for package management with dependencies on skyvern and llama-index.
• Documentation:
  • Includes README.md with installation and usage instructions for local and API-based task execution.

^{This description was created by for 449fe00. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Skipped PR review on d4d43ac because no changed files had a supported extension. If you think this was in error, please contact us and we'll fix it right away.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 8156744 in 1 minute and 21 seconds

More details

• Looked at 159 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 8 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:112

• Draft comment:
  Potential bug: 'navigation_payload' is set to 'task_request.navigation_goal'. Confirm if this is intended or if it should be 'task_request.navigation_payload'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:146

• Draft comment:
  Endpoint naming inconsistency: 'run_observer_task_v_2' in run_task_v2 vs 'observer_task_v_2' in dispatch_task_v2. Verify if this difference is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:12

• Draft comment:
  Renamed class 'SkyvernClientToolSpec' to 'SkyvernToolSpec'. Ensure that downstream references are updated or consider providing a deprecation alias.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the class rename is real, this kind of change would be caught by the build system and type checker. Any downstream imports would fail to compile, making it impossible to miss. The comment is stating something that would be automatically enforced and doesn't require manual verification.
  The comment does identify a real change. Breaking changes to public APIs should be handled carefully.
  While API changes need care, this is a compile-time issue that would be automatically caught. No manual verification is needed.
  Delete the comment as it points out something that would be automatically caught by the build system and type checker.

4. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:73

• Draft comment:
  The 'spec_functions' parameter in 'get_metadata_from_fn_name' is not used. Consider removing it if unnecessary.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

5. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:112

• Draft comment:
  Double-check the parameter mapping: 'navigation_payload' is set to 'task_request.navigation_goal'. Verify if this is intentional or if a separate 'navigation_payload' field is expected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:121

• Draft comment:
  Renamed method 'queue_task_v1' to 'dispatch_task_v1'. Confirm that calling code and documentation reflect this change.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm that the calling code and documentation reflect the change in method name. This violates the rule against asking the author to confirm their intention or to double-check things. The comment does not provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.

7. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:158

• Draft comment:
  Renamed method 'queue_task_v2' to 'dispatch_task_v2'. Ensure that this change aligns with API expectations and documentation.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that the change aligns with API expectations and documentation, which violates the rule against asking the author to confirm their intention or ensure behavior. It does not provide a specific suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.

8. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:112

• Draft comment:
  Typographical/assignment check: On line 112, the argument 'navigation_payload' is set to 'task_request.navigation_goal'. Please verify if this is intentional or if it should reference 'task_request.navigation_payload' (if such an attribute exists). This might be a copy-paste error.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_fPrjmQ2krAggkn8H

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on ac8d630 in 1 minute and 33 seconds

More details

• Looked at 158 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:55

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a docstring or inline comment explaining the default engine (TaskV2) in init. This supports clarity on the design choice.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:18

• Draft comment:
  Metadata names for TaskV1 and TaskV2 are identical. Consider differentiating names (e.g., include version info) to avoid potential conflicts or confusion in external integrations.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The code uses an engine parameter to select between V1 and V2, and the metadata is accessed through this engine parameter in get_metadata_from_fn_name(). The identical names don't cause technical issues because they're in separate dictionaries. The unified naming actually makes sense from an API perspective - it hides the version differences from the end user.
  The comment raises a valid point about potential confusion. If someone is debugging or logging these names, it might be harder to tell which version was used.
  The unified naming appears intentional as part of the API design. The version difference is handled through the engine parameter, making the identical names a feature rather than a bug.
  The identical names are an intentional design choice that provides a clean API, with versioning handled separately through the engine parameter. The comment should be removed.

3. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:59

• Draft comment:
  The parameter 'spec_functions' in get_metadata_from_fn_name is not used. Consider removing it if it's unnecessary.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

4. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:15

• Draft comment:
  Renaming 'queue_task' to 'dispatch_task' is a significant change. Confirm that all consumers are updated accordingly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment asks the PR author to confirm that all consumers are updated, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or verification. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code.

5. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:87

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding or updating docstrings for engine-specific methods for better clarity and maintainability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The v1/v2 methods are implementation details that shouldn't be called directly - they're called through the public run_task() method which is already documented via ToolMetadata. Adding docstrings to private implementation methods could create maintenance burden and redundancy. The code is quite clear without them.
  Perhaps docstrings could help explain the differences between v1 and v2 implementations for maintainers. The code itself doesn't make the distinction clear.
  The distinction between v1 and v2 should be documented at a higher level in the class or module docstring if needed, not in individual implementation methods. The methods themselves are straightforward and self-documenting.
  The comment should be deleted. Adding docstrings to private implementation methods would add unnecessary maintenance burden when the public interface is already well documented.

6. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:20

• Draft comment:
  The metadata names for run_task and dispatch_task are identical between TaskV1 and TaskV2. Ensure this is intentional and that downstream consumers can differentiate based on the engine setting.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

Workflow ID: wflow_HbUZUaVj3TYPaViZ

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 036d446 in 1 minute and 5 seconds

More details

• Looked at 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 7 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/pyproject.toml:3

• Draft comment:
  Bumped version from 0.0.1 to 0.0.2. Ensure this complies with semver rules.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. integrations/llama_index/pyproject.toml:7

• Draft comment:
  Added 'readme' field. Confirm README.md exists in the root directory.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. integrations/llama_index/pyproject.toml:3

• Draft comment:
  Version bumped to 0.0.2; confirm associated changelog or release notes are updated.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. integrations/llama_index/pyproject.toml:7

• Draft comment:
  Added 'readme' field; ensure README.md exists and reflects current integration details.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. integrations/llama_index/pyproject.toml:10

• Draft comment:
  New dependencies defined; verify that version constraints (Python, skyvern, llama-index) align with project needs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. integrations/llama_index/pyproject.toml:15

• Draft comment:
  Dev dependency group added; ensure usage of Poetry 1.2+ as this grouping is supported there.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. integrations/llama_index/pyproject.toml:18

• Draft comment:
  Build system configuration appears standard; no issues detected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_3ZQF287WVTxzpVZG

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 29bac2a in 2 minutes and 24 seconds

More details

• Looked at 152 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 18 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/README.md:8

• Draft comment:
  The table of contents updates correctly, but ensure the header names (e.g. 'Dispatch a task(async) with skyvern agent') are consistently used throughout the document.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the author to ensure consistency in header names throughout the document. It is not making a specific code suggestion or pointing out a specific issue with the code. It is more of a general request for consistency, which falls under the category of asking the author to double-check things. Therefore, it violates the rules.

2. integrations/llama_index/README.md:43

• Draft comment:
  Rename from SkyvernAgentToolSpec to SkyvernToolSpec; confirm that this aligns with the updated API.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This comment violates our rules by asking for confirmation/verification rather than pointing out a clear issue. The rename is consistent throughout the file and appears intentional. If there was an API mismatch, it would be caught by tests/builds. We should trust that the author verified the API changes before making them.
  Maybe there's an actual API compatibility issue that needs to be checked? The rename could break existing code.
  While API compatibility is important, asking for confirmation in a PR comment isn't helpful - if there was an API mismatch, it would be caught by tests. The consistent rename throughout suggests this was an intentional API change.
  Delete this comment as it only asks for confirmation without pointing out a clear issue, and API compatibility would be caught by tests.

3. integrations/llama_index/README.md:45

• Draft comment:
  Changing the tool method from 'run_task_v2' to 'run_task' is fine but ensure backend implementation corresponds to this change.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that the backend implementation corresponds to the change, which violates the rule against asking the author to ensure things. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or ask for a specific confirmation about the code change itself.

4. integrations/llama_index/README.md:87

• Draft comment:
  Changing 'queue_task_v2' and 'get_task_v2' to 'dispatch_task' and 'get_task' is consistent; just double-check that documentation and API behavior match this renaming.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to double-check documentation and API behavior, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or double-checking. It does not provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.

5. integrations/llama_index/README.md:126

• Draft comment:
  For the client sync task example, ensure the update from 'run_task_v2' to 'run_task' in the tool list reflects a corresponding change in the backend.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that a change in the code is reflected in the backend, which is a form of asking for confirmation or verification. This violates the rule against asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or to double-check things.

6. integrations/llama_index/README.md:171

• Draft comment:
  Similarly, for the client async task example, update from 'queue_task_v2' and 'get_task_v2' to 'dispatch_task' and 'get_task' consistently and verify that usage instructions align with the new function names.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

7. integrations/llama_index/README.md:181

• Draft comment:
  The client async example's agent.chat still uses 'Run a task with Skyvern' even though the section refers to dispatching; consider aligning for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

8. integrations/llama_index/README.md:9

• Draft comment:
  Updated TOC: Changed async agent label to 'Dispatch a task'. Ensure this matches the underlying API naming.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. integrations/llama_index/README.md:11

• Draft comment:
  Updated TOC: Changed async client label to 'Dispatch a task'. Verify consistency with client tool naming.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

10. integrations/llama_index/README.md:38

• Draft comment:
  Replaced 'SkyvernAgentToolSpec' with unified 'SkyvernToolSpec'. Confirm compatibility with upstream usage.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm compatibility with upstream usage, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or verification. The comment does not provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written. Therefore, it should be removed.

11. integrations/llama_index/README.md:45

• Draft comment:
  Renamed tool list key from 'run_task_v2' to 'run_task' for sync tasks. Ensure API consumers are aware of this change.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that API consumers are aware of a change, which violates the rule against asking the author to ensure something. It does not provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a test to be written. Therefore, it should be removed.

12. integrations/llama_index/README.md:87

• Draft comment:
  Updated async agent tool keys to 'dispatch_task' and 'get_task', removing '_v2'. Verify these keys match the new API.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to verify that the updated keys match the new API. This falls under asking the author to confirm or verify something, which is against the rules. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

13. integrations/llama_index/README.md:97

• Draft comment:
  Async agent sample: Chat prompt now says 'Run a task' instead of 'Queue a task'. Consider aligning it with the 'Dispatch' terminology used in the header.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

14. integrations/llama_index/README.md:112

• Draft comment:
  Replaced 'SkyvernClientToolSpec' with unified 'SkyvernToolSpec' in the client sync sample. Confirm consistent behavior.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to confirm consistent behavior, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or ensuring behavior. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue.

15. integrations/llama_index/README.md:126

• Draft comment:
  Renamed client sync tool key from 'run_task_v2' to 'run_task'. Verify that this aligns with the updated API.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify alignment with the updated API, which is against the rules. It does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a clear issue with the code.

16. integrations/llama_index/README.md:171

• Draft comment:
  Updated async client tool keys to 'dispatch_task' and 'get_task', removing '_v2'. Ensure this is consistent with the agent sample.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking to ensure consistency with the agent sample, which is a request for confirmation. This violates the rule against asking the PR author to confirm their intention or ensure consistency.

17. integrations/llama_index/README.md:181

• Draft comment:
  Async client sample: Chat prompt updated to 'Run a task'. Consider matching the header by using 'Dispatch' for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment points out an inconsistency between the section header and the prompt text, changing prompt text in examples is a relatively minor concern. The functionality works either way. The comment is about maintaining consistency in terminology, but it's not pointing out a technical issue or suggesting an important code improvement.
  The inconsistency in terminology could potentially confuse readers about whether they're looking at sync vs async examples. However, the actual behavior is determined by the tools used (dispatch_task), not the prompt text.
  While terminology consistency is nice to have, the comment doesn't address a functional issue or code quality problem. The example will work correctly regardless of the prompt wording.
  This comment should be deleted as it suggests a purely cosmetic change to example text that doesn't impact functionality or code quality.

18. integrations/llama_index/README.md:49

• Draft comment:
  There appears to be a potential typographical error in the model specification. The model is set as 'gpt-4o'. Please verify if this is intentional or if it should be 'gpt-4' to avoid confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_yHqkAIOM35eu8wKa

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[wintonzheng]

what does skyvern OpenAPI mean? this is confusing

[LawyZheng]

which word do you like? skyvern API?

[LawyZheng]

skyvern HTTP API?

[wintonzheng]

Suggested change

	- [Run a task(sync) with skyvern client (calling skyvern OpenAPI in the tool)](#run-a-tasksync-with-skyvern-client-calling-skyvern-openapi-in-the-tool)
	- [Run a task by calling skyvern APIs and waiting for it to complete](#run-a-tasksync-with-skyvern-client-calling-skyvern-openapi-in-the-tool)

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 70213bf in 1 minute and 12 seconds

More details

• Looked at 278 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 7 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/README.md:35

• Draft comment:
  Rename import from SkyvernToolSpec to SkyvernTaskToolSpec and update tool list arguments (e.g., 'run_task' to 'run'). Ensure the documentation consistently reflects the new API.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

2. integrations/llama_index/README.md:57

• Draft comment:
  Update description for dispatching task: change references from get_task to get. Verify that tool names in examples match the new naming.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to update the PR description and verify tool names, which violates the rules. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.

3. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:12

• Draft comment:
  Rename class and methods to match new naming (e.g., run, dispatch, get) consistently in metadata and method definitions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

4. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:13

• Draft comment:
  Update class and method names in client implementation to reflect the renaming from run_task/dispatch_task/get_task to run/dispatch/get. Check consistency in both metadata and method calls.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

5. integrations/llama_index/README.md:38

• Draft comment:
  Consistently renamed 'SkyvernToolSpec' to 'SkyvernTaskToolSpec' and updated tool method names from 'run_task/dispatch_task/get_task' to 'run/dispatch/get' in the examples.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative, describing changes made in the code without providing any actionable feedback or suggestions. It does not align with the rules for useful comments.

6. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:12

• Draft comment:
  API method renaming (run, dispatch, get) in SkyvernTaskToolSpec is applied consistently.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative and does not provide any actionable feedback or suggestions. It simply states that the renaming is applied consistently, which does not align with the rules for useful comments.

7. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:13

• Draft comment:
  Renaming of methods in SkyvernTaskToolSpec (to run, dispatch, get) in the client module aligns with the updated API.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative, as it simply states that the renaming of methods aligns with the updated API. It does not provide any actionable feedback or suggestions for improvement.

Workflow ID: wflow_ttGfvLAL7VDJzx4H

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 97a2e1d in 58 seconds

More details

• Looked at 36 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 8 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/langchain/README.md:37

• Draft comment:
  Removed redundant comment about API key. This cleanup is fine as long as docs elsewhere clarify key setup.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. integrations/langchain/README.md:73

• Draft comment:
  Redundant API key comment removed; ensure users still see key setup instructions in warnings.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. integrations/langchain/README.md:112

• Draft comment:
  Cleanup: removed unnecessary comment. Confirm that documentation elsewhere covers API key initialization.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. integrations/langchain/README.md:153

• Draft comment:
  Removed repetitive API key comment. Ensure overall instructions remain clear to users.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. integrations/langchain/README.md:37

• Draft comment:
  Removed redundant comment about loading the OpenAI API key. This cleanup is fine as long as the docs elsewhere (e.g., the warning blocks) clearly instruct users to properly set up their environment.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. integrations/langchain/README.md:72

• Draft comment:
  Removed redundant comment about loading the OpenAI API key. Ensure users follow the setup instructions in the warning block.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. integrations/langchain/README.md:110

• Draft comment:
  Removal of the redundant API key comment cleans up the code; verify that documentation elsewhere is sufficient for user setup.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. integrations/langchain/README.md:150

• Draft comment:
  Removed redundant comment related to loading the API key. Documenting the setup in the warning is sufficient.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_xoSljh0OlvCBro8E

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on b4acc7c in 35 seconds

More details

• Looked at 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/pyproject.toml:3

• Draft comment:
  Version bump updated to 0.0.3; ensure semantic versioning consistency and corresponding release notes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is related to a version bump, which falls under dependency changes. The comment is asking to ensure semantic versioning consistency and corresponding release notes, which is not allowed as it asks for confirmation and updates to the PR description.

2. integrations/llama_index/pyproject.toml:3

• Draft comment:
  Version bump updated from 0.0.2 to 0.0.3. Ensure semantic versioning reflects integration changes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_6xMAVlLT05KMwR9t

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 346d8ad in 1 minute and 17 seconds

More details

• Looked at 66 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 8 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/README.md:43

• Draft comment:
  Good renaming! Use of 'skyvern_task_tool' improves clarity compared to 'skyvern_tool'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. integrations/llama_index/README.md:79

• Draft comment:
  Consistent rename for async agent integration: 'skyvern_tool' to 'skyvern_task_tool'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. integrations/llama_index/README.md:119

• Draft comment:
  Clearer naming in client integration example: change from 'skyvern_client_tool' to 'skyvern_task_tool'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. integrations/llama_index/README.md:158

• Draft comment:
  Consistently rename 'skyvern_client_tool' to 'skyvern_task_tool' for the async client integration.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. integrations/llama_index/README.md:43

• Draft comment:
  Renamed 'skyvern_tool' to 'skyvern_task_tool' for consistency. Ensure this naming is uniformly applied in the agent sync example.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

6. integrations/llama_index/README.md:79

• Draft comment:
  Consistent renaming in the async agent example; 'skyvern_tool' is now 'skyvern_task_tool'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative, as it simply acknowledges a change without providing any actionable feedback or suggestions. It does not align with the rules for good comments, which should offer specific suggestions or ask for confirmation on potentially unintended changes.

7. integrations/llama_index/README.md:122

• Draft comment:
  Renaming 'skyvern_client_tool' to 'skyvern_task_tool' in the sync client example improves consistency. Verify if client-specific naming is needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify if a client-specific naming is needed after a renaming action. This falls under asking the author to confirm their intention or to double-check things, which is against the rules.

8. integrations/llama_index/README.md:158

• Draft comment:
  Update in async client example: 'skyvern_client_tool' is now 'skyvern_task_tool'. This enhances naming consistency across examples.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative, providing information about a change in naming for consistency. It does not suggest any code changes, ask for tests, or confirm intentions. It violates the rule against purely informative comments.

Workflow ID: wflow_xPupxKThr2TlCM71

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[wintonzheng]

Suggested change

	- [Run a task(sync) with skyvern agent (calling skyvern agent function directly in the tool)](#run-a-tasksync-with-skyvern-agent-calling-skyvern-agent-function-directly-in-the-tool)
	- [Run a task(sync) locally in your local environment](#run-a-tasksync-with-skyvern-agent-calling-skyvern-agent-function-directly-in-the-tool)

[wintonzheng]

Suggested change

	- [Dispatch a task(async) with skyvern agent (calling skyvern agent function directly in the tool)](#dispatch-a-taskasync-with-skyvern-agent-calling-skyvern-agent-function-directly-in-the-tool)
	- [Dispatch a async task in your local environment](#dispatch-a-taskasync-with-skyvern-agent-calling-skyvern-agent-function-directly-in-the-tool)

[wintonzheng]

Suggested change

	### Run a task(sync) with skyvern agent (calling skyvern agent function directly in the tool)
	### Run a task locally in your local environment and wait until it completes

[wintonzheng]

Dispatch a task that runs asynchronously in your local environment

[wintonzheng]

Suggested change

	### Run a task(sync) with skyvern client (calling skyvern OpenAPI in the tool)
	### Run a task in skyvern service and wait until it completes

[wintonzheng]

Suggested change

	### Dispatch a task(async) with skyvern client (calling skyvern OpenAPI in the tool)
	### Dispatch a task that runs asynchronously in skyvern service

[wintonzheng]

after using it and thinking abt it, let's just use one name/tool, named SkyvernTool.

For setting up workflow, we can still have different interfaces like skyvern_tool.run_task and skyvern_tool.run_workflow?

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on f027d94 in 1 minute and 16 seconds

More details

• Looked at 20 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/langchain/README.md:207

• Draft comment:
  Good inline comment clarifying load_dotenv() use. Consider staying consistent with comment style.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. integrations/langchain/README.md:252

• Draft comment:
  Clear comment addition. Ensure consistency in comment phrasing across examples.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. integrations/langchain/README.md:205

• Draft comment:
  Good clarity added on dotenv usage. Consider specifying the env var name (e.g., OPENAI_API_KEY) for clearer guidance.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. integrations/langchain/README.md:249

• Draft comment:
  Helpful comment on dotenv usage. You might specify which env var is loaded (e.g., OPENAI_API_KEY) to aid users.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. integrations/langchain/README.md:207

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error detected: the model is specified as 'gpt-4o'. Please verify if this is intentional or if it should be corrected to 'gpt-4'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

6. integrations/langchain/README.md:248

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error detected: the model is specified as 'gpt-4o'. Please verify if this is intentional or if it should be corrected to 'gpt-4'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

Workflow ID: wflow_lpTPXUDdPOd1CFuw

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on df2d160 in 2 minutes and 34 seconds

More details

• Looked at 267 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:71

• Draft comment:
  Docstring parameter notation should be simplified; remove '[str]' from 'task_id[str]'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While this is a valid style suggestion, it's a very minor formatting issue. The docstring is still perfectly readable and functional either way. The codebase isn't even consistent in its style (see line 42). This feels like unnecessary nitpicking that doesn't materially improve the code.
  The inconsistent docstring style across the codebase could be confusing to developers. Having a consistent style guide could improve readability.
  While consistency is good, this single comment won't fix the broader inconsistency. This kind of minor style issue should be handled by a linter or style guide, not PR comments.
  Delete this comment. It's too minor of a style issue to warrant a PR comment, and would be better handled by automated tools or style guides.

2. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:25

• Draft comment:
  Default parameter uses 'settings.run_task_timeout' which doesn't exist (should be settings.run_task_timeout_seconds).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

3. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:42

• Draft comment:
  Consider using standard docstring parameter notation (e.g., 'user_prompt (str):') instead of 'user_prompt[str]'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:88

• Draft comment:
  Verify removal of several parameters (e.g., webhook_callback_url, totp fields) in TaskV1 methods is intentional per new API schema.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment violates several rules: 1) It asks for verification/confirmation which is explicitly discouraged 2) It starts with "Verify that..." which is called out as likely not useful 3) The changes appear intentional as they're part of a larger refactor using a new request validation model 4) The comment doesn't suggest any actual code changes.
  The parameter removal could potentially break existing clients who depend on these parameters. Maybe this deserves attention.
  While breaking changes are important, asking for verification isn't helpful - if there was a real issue, it should be stated directly with evidence. The systematic nature of the changes suggests this was intentional.
  Delete the comment as it only asks for verification without providing actionable feedback or evidence of actual problems.

Workflow ID: wflow_Wpx1n38Sc4vFdOxg

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Default value mismatch: uses settings.run_task_timeout but settings file defines run_task_timeout_seconds.

Suggested change

	run_task_timeout_seconds: int = settings.run_task_timeout,
	run_task_timeout_seconds: int = settings.run_task_timeout_seconds,

[ellipsis-dev]

Docstring parameter notation should be simplified; remove [str] from user_prompt[str].

Suggested change

	user_prompt[str]: User's prompt about the task description.
	user_prompt: User's prompt about the task description.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 82074e4 in 2 minutes and 25 seconds

More details

• Looked at 83 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 5 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:18

• Draft comment:
  Consider checking that to_tool_list returns a non-empty list to avoid potential index errors.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  Since "run_task" is explicitly listed in spec_functions and to_tool_list is presumably converting these spec functions to tools, there's no real risk of an empty list here. The code is using the API as intended. The suggestion would add defensive programming that isn't necessary given the guarantees of the class design.
  I could be wrong about the implementation of to_tool_list - maybe it filters the functions somehow and could return an empty list even for valid spec functions.
  Looking at the class hierarchy and usage, this appears to be a standard pattern for LlamaIndex tools. The spec_functions list defines what will be available, so checking for emptiness would be redundant.
  The comment should be removed. The suggested check is unnecessary given the class design and would add complexity without meaningful safety.

2. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:117

• Draft comment:
  Good use of model_copy for immutability, ensure task_generation retains all necessary fields after update.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:139

• Draft comment:
  Ensure consistency in passing the URL; in run_task_v1 you pass url directly, while in dispatch_task_v1 task_request.url is used.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:56

• Draft comment:
  Parameter renamed to run_task_timeout_seconds using settings.run_task_timeout_seconds. Verify that this change is intentional and that the settings are updated accordingly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify their intention, which is against the rules. It does not provide a specific suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written. Therefore, it should be removed.

5. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:117

• Draft comment:
  Using model_copy for updating 'url' is good, but check consistency: run_task_v1 passes 'url' directly while dispatch_task_v1 uses task_request.url. Ensure both functions handle the URL parameter consistently.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The inconsistency exists, but is it a bug? Both functions update task_generation with the url parameter, which then gets validated into task_request. In run_task_v1, using the raw url means we're using the most recent value, while in dispatch_task_v1 we're using the validated version. Without knowing the intended behavior or seeing the implementation of the underlying client methods, it's hard to say which is correct.
  I don't have enough context about the intended behavior or the implementation of client.agent.run_task vs client.agent.create_task to know which approach is correct. The inconsistency could be intentional.
  While there is a clear inconsistency, without strong evidence that one approach is definitely wrong, we shouldn't force them to be consistent just for consistency's sake.
  Delete the comment. While there is an inconsistency, we don't have strong evidence that it's incorrect or causing problems.

Workflow ID: wflow_L9wve3DkLs6Zv2IV

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

New class SkyvernTool duplicates the instantiation of SkyvernTaskToolSpec in each method. Consider abstracting the common initialization to a helper method.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 44b45b1 in 2 minutes and 14 seconds

More details

• Looked at 259 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 8 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:52

• Draft comment:
  Consider fixing typographical error in comment: replace "haven't" with "hasn't" for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 20% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is suggesting a change in a comment for clarity. While it is a suggestion, it is not related to the functionality or logic of the code. It is more of a stylistic or grammatical suggestion, which doesn't align with the rules provided. The rules focus on functionality, logic, and testing rather than grammatical corrections in comments.

2. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:116

• Draft comment:
  In run_task_v1, the 'url' parameter is conditionally assigned to task_request but then passed as 'url=url'. For consistency, consider passing 'url=task_request.url' to avoid discrepancies.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Based on historical feedback, this comment is too similar to comments previously marked by users as bad.

3. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:88

• Draft comment:
  Similarly, update docstring parameter annotations (e.g., 'user_prompt[str]') to a more standard format like 'user_prompt (str): ...'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:155

• Draft comment:
  Consider reviewing the return type annotations for run_task_v2 and dispatch_task_v2. Returning 'Dict[str, Any | None]' may be less explicit compared to using a defined schema or model, impacting clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

5. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:62

• Draft comment:
  Use standard docstring syntax (e.g., 'user_prompt (str):') instead of 'user_prompt[str]'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

6. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:125

• Draft comment:
  Using 'navigation_goal' for the 'navigation_payload' parameter may be unintended. Verify if a separate 'navigation_payload' field should be used.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

7. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:58

• Draft comment:
  Consider managing the lifecycle of the AsyncClient (e.g., using a context manager or ensuring it is properly closed) to avoid potential resource leaks.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

8. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:52

• Draft comment:
  Typo in the TODO comment: consider changing "agent haven't exposed the task v1 generate function" to "agent hasn't exposed the task v1 generate function" for proper grammar.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the grammar correction is technically correct, TODO comments are informal internal notes for developers. The meaning is perfectly clear either way. This kind of minor grammar fix in a TODO comment doesn't materially improve code quality or functionality. It's the kind of nitpicky comment that can create unnecessary noise in code reviews.
  The grammar is indeed incorrect, and maintaining good writing quality throughout the codebase could be seen as important for professionalism.
  However, TODO comments are temporary by nature and the meaning is completely clear. This level of grammar policing doesn't add meaningful value to the review.
  This comment should be removed as it focuses on an insignificant grammar issue in a temporary TODO comment rather than substantive code issues.

Workflow ID: wflow_NR0lIy8W0xB4iDtY

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Docstring parameter annotations (e.g., 'user_prompt[str]') are unconventional. Consider using 'user_prompt (str): ...' for clarity.

Suggested change

	user_prompt[str]: User's prompt about the task description.
	user_prompt (str): User's prompt about the task description.

[ellipsis-dev]

TaskRequest.url is updated if url is provided, but then run_task is called with 'url' parameter directly. Consider passing task_request.url to ensure consistency.

Suggested change

	url=url,
	url=task_request.url,

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 2c84bb2 in 50 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:121

• Draft comment:
  Use task_request.url to ensure the generated URL (with possible updates) is passed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

2. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:121

• Draft comment:
  Using 'task_request.url' ensures any modifications (like setting a non-null url) are reflected. Confirm this is the intended behavior.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_JAmqRwR7LFRAlaQ2

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 7d18bcb in 1 minute and 22 seconds

More details

• Looked at 17 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:15

• Draft comment:
  Using a module-level 'agent' instance here and referencing it as the default in SkyvernTool may lead to shared mutable state. Confirm if this singleton behavior is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment violates two rules: 1) It asks for confirmation ("Confirm if...") which we should avoid, and 2) It's speculative ("may lead to") rather than pointing out a definite issue. Additionally, without seeing the Agent class implementation, we can't be certain if shared state is actually problematic here. The SkyvernTaskToolSpec also creates its own Agent instance when needed.
  The shared state could potentially cause real issues in production, and moving from instance-level to module-level is a significant architectural change that deserves scrutiny.
  While shared state is worth considering, the comment as written doesn't provide actionable feedback and asks for confirmation rather than suggesting a specific fix. If shared state was definitely problematic, the code would likely have tests failing.
  Delete this comment because it's speculative and asks for confirmation rather than making a concrete suggestion. If shared state is actually an issue, it should be raised with specific evidence of the problem.

2. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:54

• Draft comment:
  Typo in the TODO comment at line 54: 'agent haven't exposed the task v1 generate function' could be rephrased for clarity, e.g., 'agent hasn't exposed the task v1 generation function'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_XxSl0B4wrXsmehV3

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Consider renaming the global agent (e.g., default_agent) to avoid potential confusion with instance variables. Using a single global instance may cause shared-state issues if Agent isn't stateless or thread-safe.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 95da715 in 1 minute and 32 seconds

More details

• Looked at 72 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 7 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:17

• Draft comment:
  Switching SkyvernTool from a BaseModel to a plain class removes automatic data validation. Confirm this is intended.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The class is very simple with just one attribute. The Agent type is enforced by the type hint in init. There's no complex data structure or validation needed. The BaseModel functionality wasn't being utilized for any meaningful validation. The comment is asking for confirmation rather than pointing out a clear issue.
  Perhaps there are validation rules in BaseModel that were being used that aren't visible in this file. Maybe there are callers expecting Pydantic model behavior.
  The class is internal to this file and very simple. If validation was important, it would likely have more complex attributes or validation rules defined. The type hint provides sufficient validation for this use case.
  Delete the comment. It's asking for confirmation rather than pointing out a clear issue, and the change appears reasonable given the simple nature of the class.

2. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:68

• Draft comment:
  The use of union return types (e.g. TaskResponse | Dict[str, Any | None]) could be ambiguous. Consider unifying the return type for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:4

• Draft comment:
  Removed the Pydantic import; ensure no validation features from BaseModel are needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:17

• Draft comment:
  Changed SkyvernTool from a Pydantic model to a plain class. Confirm that the loss of automatic validation/serialization is acceptable.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The class is extremely simple - it just stores an Agent instance and provides tool methods. There's no complex data structure that would benefit from Pydantic validation. The methods return FunctionTool objects which are likely validated elsewhere. The comment is asking for confirmation rather than pointing out a clear issue.
  I could be missing some validation requirements that aren't obvious from this file. The class might be serialized somewhere else in the codebase.
  Even if there were hidden validation needs, the comment is asking for confirmation rather than pointing out a specific issue. Per the rules, we should not ask authors to confirm their intentions.
  Delete the comment. It asks for confirmation rather than pointing out a clear issue, and the simple class structure doesn't suggest any obvious need for Pydantic validation.

5. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:62

• Draft comment:
  Docstring improvements: clearer wording and consistent parameter descriptions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/client.py:73

• Draft comment:
  Docstring wording updated for clarity and consistency; parameter descriptions now use 'the user’s prompt' and proper 'URL' capitalization.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:54

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error in the TODO comment. Consider changing "agent haven't exposed the task v1 generate function" to "agent hasn't exposed the task v1 generate function" for grammatical correctness.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_36sLX5XUlxCu7xmU

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on a638ab0 in 1 minute and 56 seconds

More details

• Looked at 317 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 11 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/README.md:82

• Draft comment:
  Consider noting that using 'await asyncio.sleep(600)' is a simplistic way to wait for task completion. For production, a more robust polling mechanism might be preferred.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. integrations/llama_index/README.md:111

• Draft comment:
  Clarify in the 'Get a task locally' example how to retrieve a valid task ID instead of using '<task_id>' placeholder.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. integrations/llama_index/README.md:127

• Draft comment:
  Ensure consistent API key instructions. The comment shows two alternatives; consider highlighting a recommended practice to avoid confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 20% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. integrations/llama_index/README.md:240

• Draft comment:
  The advanced usage example duplicates the dotenv load and sleep function; consider briefly explaining these repeated steps, or note that each block is self-contained.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 20% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. integrations/llama_index/README.md:194

• Draft comment:
  In the description 'The task information re-get interval should be 60s', consider clarifying that the example prompt does not implement automatic polling, and users should implement a polling loop.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. integrations/llama_index/README.md:7

• Draft comment:
  The updated TOC with 'Basic Usage' and 'Advanced Usage' clearly distinguishes local and API-based examples, which is great. Ensure that all header anchors in the document match these new names.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. integrations/llama_index/README.md:39

• Draft comment:
  The snippet imports 'load_dotenv' but never calls it. For consistency with other examples that rely on environment variables, consider adding a call to 'load_dotenv()' or removing the unused import.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. integrations/llama_index/README.md:83

• Draft comment:
  Using a fixed 'await asyncio.sleep(600)' to keep the script running may not be the most robust method. Consider suggesting a polling loop or a proper task-completion check for production-level code.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. integrations/llama_index/README.md:48

• Draft comment:
  Please confirm that 'gpt-4o' is the intended model identifier. If it's a typo for 'gpt-4', update it to avoid confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 40% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm their intention regarding the model identifier 'gpt-4o'. This violates the rule against asking for confirmation of intention. However, it does suggest a specific action if it is a typo, which is useful. The comment could be rephrased to focus on the suggestion rather than asking for confirmation.

10. integrations/llama_index/README.md:44

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a brief clarification in the documentation about the difference between 'run_task()' (synchronous) and 'dispatch_task()' (asynchronous) to help users choose the appropriate function.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

11. integrations/llama_index/README.md:78

• Draft comment:
  In the async example, 'agent.chat()' is called inside an async function without being awaited. Verify if 'agent.chat()' is a synchronous call or if it should be awaited.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_6gZRudDUK69caXIp

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

It appears that the model parameter is set to gpt-4o in several code examples. Please check if this is a typographical error and if it should be corrected to gpt-4 or the appropriate model name.

Suggested change

	llm=OpenAI(model="gpt-4o"),
	llm=OpenAI(model="gpt-4"),

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 7b354dd in 1 minute and 8 seconds

More details

• Looked at 64 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 7 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/README.md:41

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a note to ensure that the python-dotenv package is installed when using load_dotenv(), as it's required for these examples.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. integrations/llama_index/README.md:67

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a note to ensure that the python-dotenv package is installed when using load_dotenv() in async examples.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. integrations/llama_index/README.md:98

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a note about ensuring python-dotenv is installed; loading .env in each snippet is helpful but users must have the dependency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. integrations/llama_index/README.md:121

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a note about python-dotenv dependency to support the load_dotenv() call, especially if users haven't run skyvern init.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. integrations/llama_index/README.md:148

• Draft comment:
  Adding a note to remind users to install python-dotenv could improve the clarity of these code examples using load_dotenv().
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. integrations/llama_index/README.md:173

• Draft comment:
  Consider a note regarding the python-dotenv dependency for clarity in examples using load_dotenv().
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. integrations/llama_index/README.md:41

• Draft comment:
  Good addition of load_dotenv() calls to ensure environment variables (like API keys) are loaded. Consider adding a note in the Installation section that the python-dotenv package is required, and mention that if combining code snippets in one script, a single load_dotenv() call suffices.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment suggests adding a note in the documentation about the python-dotenv package requirement and a tip about using load_dotenv(). This is purely informative and does not suggest a code change or improvement. It violates the rule against making purely informative comments.

Workflow ID: wflow_mwaoXbejMMzbbA4X

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 304b183 in 31 seconds

More details

• Looked at 20 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 5 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:14

• Draft comment:
  Global default_agent is created. Consider whether Agent construction is costly and if lazy initialization might be preferable.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:18

• Draft comment:
  In init, use default_agent if agent is None. Consider ensuring consistency with other parts of the module (e.g. SkyvernTaskToolSpec) which create a new Agent instance instead.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:14

• Draft comment:
  Renamed global 'agent' to 'default_agent' for clarity. Confirm that sharing a global Agent instance won't lead to state issues if Agent is mutable.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:18

• Draft comment:
  Good practice using Optional[Agent]=None; consider shorthand assignment like 'self.agent = agent or default_agent' if simplicity is desired.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. integrations/llama_index/skyvern_llamaindex/agent.py:56

• Draft comment:
  In the TODO comment on line 56, consider changing "agent haven't exposed" to "agent hasn't exposed" for grammatical correctness.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_piyZTTNdSjAhhEh0

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on dd05233 in 1 minute and 57 seconds

More details

• Looked at 125 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 9 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/README.md:62

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the term 'agent' is clearly defined. Replacing 'script' with 'agent' might confuse users if the relationship between the agent and the underlying execution process is unclear.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The term 'agent' is actually very clear in this context - it's referring to the OpenAIAgent instance that's created in all the code examples. The code shows exactly what the agent is and how it's used. The warning message is straightforward - you need to keep the agent (the OpenAIAgent instance) running until the task completes.
  Perhaps some users who are not familiar with LlamaIndex might still be confused by the term 'agent' even with the code examples.
  The code examples make it crystal clear what an agent is - it's an instance of OpenAIAgent created with specific tools. This is a technical README for a LlamaIndex integration, so users are expected to have basic familiarity with these concepts.
  The comment should be deleted. The term 'agent' is well-defined through code examples and this is a technical README where some basic knowledge can be assumed.

2. integrations/llama_index/README.md:66

• Draft comment:
  The removal of the async main loop and the explicit sleep call may lead to confusion regarding asynchronous execution. Consider adding a brief note to guide users on managing async tasks.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. integrations/llama_index/README.md:77

• Draft comment:
  The 'sleep' function is defined in multiple examples. To avoid redundancy and potential inconsistencies, consider centralizing or referencing a common implementation.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a README file with example code snippets, not production code. Each example should be self-contained and complete so users can copy-paste and run them independently. Centralizing the sleep function would make the examples less clear and harder to use. The repetition is intentional and beneficial in this documentation context.
  Perhaps having a common utilities section at the top of the README could make the code more DRY while still maintaining clarity?
  In documentation, DRY principles are often intentionally violated in favor of clarity and ease of use. Self-contained examples are more valuable than avoiding repetition.
  The comment should be deleted. The repetition of the sleep function is appropriate in this documentation context where self-contained, copy-pasteable examples are more valuable than code reuse.

4. integrations/llama_index/README.md:169

• Draft comment:
  Update all warnings to consistently reference the 'agent' rather than 'script' to prevent any misunderstandings about how the actual process execution is managed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

5. integrations/llama_index/README.md:62

• Draft comment:
  The warning text update from 'script' to 'agent' is a good change, but 'when the agent finished the chat' may be ambiguous. Consider clarifying that the agent's session must remain active until the background task completes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. integrations/llama_index/README.md:88

• Draft comment:
  In the async task example the async main() and explicit event loop handling have been removed. Ensure it’s clear to users how background tasks remain active without an explicit asyncio loop.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. integrations/llama_index/README.md:77

• Draft comment:
  The definition of the sleep tool (async def sleep and its FunctionTool instantiation) is repeated in multiple examples. Consider referencing a common snippet or noting that the code is duplicated for standalone examples to reduce redundancy.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. integrations/llama_index/README.md:50

• Draft comment:
  Verify that 'gpt-4o' is the intended model identifier. If it's a typo and should be 'gpt-4', update it for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. integrations/llama_index/README.md:62

• Draft comment:
  Typo: In the warning message on keeping the agent running, change 'when the agent finished the chat' to 'when the agent finishes the chat' for consistent present tense.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the grammar suggestion is technically correct, our rules state we should not make purely informative comments or comments that are obvious/unimportant. This is a minor grammatical issue in documentation that doesn't affect code functionality or understanding. The meaning is perfectly clear either way.
  The grammar issue could potentially cause confusion for non-native English speakers. Documentation clarity is important.
  While documentation clarity matters, this minor tense inconsistency doesn't meaningfully impact understanding. The warning message is still perfectly comprehensible.
  Delete the comment as it's too minor and doesn't require a code change. It violates our rule about not making purely informative or unimportant comments.

Workflow ID: wflow_rerUilu7DfrRVftS

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 273ccb3 in 37 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/README.md:134

• Draft comment:
  Changed import from agent to client for SkyvernTool. Ensure that client version supports run_task() as used.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to ensure that the client version supports a specific function, which is a form of asking for confirmation or verification. This violates the rule against asking the PR author to confirm or ensure behavior. Therefore, this comment should not be approved.

2. integrations/llama_index/README.md:134

• Draft comment:
  Changed import from 'skyvern_llamaindex.agent' to 'skyvern_llamaindex.client'. Ensure that this update is consistent with the new module structure and usage throughout the project.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_R2nMGUqb09FqRNR6

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 449fe00 in 26 seconds

More details

• Looked at 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. integrations/llama_index/pyproject.toml:7

• Draft comment:
  Ensure README.md exists.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. integrations/llama_index/pyproject.toml:12

• Draft comment:
  Confirm 'llama-index' dependency version compatibility.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. integrations/llama_index/pyproject.toml:3

• Draft comment:
  Version bump to 0.0.4 looks good. Ensure release notes and docs reflect this update.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_os0FghEewywW3C3e

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.