Remove unnecessary text from review prompt

[SanaeProject]

No description provided.

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[github-actions]

Code Review by Gemini

This pull request introduces a new GitHub Actions workflow for Gemini-powered code reviews.

Here's a review of the changes:

1. Commit Message Discrepancy:

• Observation: The commit title "Remove unnecessary text from review prompt" suggests a modification to an existing prompt. However, the diff shows the addition of a completely new workflow file (gemini-review.yml) and thus the initial creation of the prompt.
• Suggestion: The commit title is misleading. It would be more accurate to title this commit something like "Add Gemini Code Reviewer workflow" or "Introduce Gemini AI code review action" since this is a new file being added.

2. Workflow Configuration (gemini-review.yml):

• Name: Gemini Code Reviewer - Clear and descriptive.
• Trigger: on: pull_request: types: [opened, synchronize] - This is appropriate for a code review bot, ensuring it runs when a PR is opened or updated.
• Permissions:
  • contents: read: Necessary for checking out the repository.
  • pull-requests: write: Essential for the action to post comments on the pull request. This is correctly configured.
• Job review:
  • runs-on: ubuntu-latest: Standard and appropriate.
  • Steps:
    • Checkout Repository: Standard practice.
    • Run Gemini Reviewer:
      • continue-on-error: true: This is a good practice for review bots. If the AI service or action fails, it won't block the PR from being merged.
      • uses: sshnaidm/gemini-code-review-action@v2: Specifies the action to use.
      • gemini-key: ${{ secrets.GEMINI_API_KEY }}: Correctly uses a GitHub secret for the API key.
      • model: 'gemini-2.5-flash': Specifies the Gemini model. flash models are generally faster and more cost-effective, which is often suitable for automated reviews. If the quality of reviews isn't sufficient, you might consider experimenting with gemini-1.5-pro in the future, but flash is a good starting point.

3. Review Prompt:

• Content: The prompt is well-structured and clear. It sets the persona of a "極めて優秀なシニアエンジニア" (extremely competent senior engineer) and asks for feedback on key areas:
  1. 潜在的なバグ (Potential bugs)
  2. パフォーマンスや計算効率の改善点 (Performance/efficiency improvements)
  3. コードの可読性やメンテナンス性 (Code readability and maintainability)
• Language: The prompt is entirely in Japanese, which aligns with the request for comments to be in Japanese.

Overall:
The workflow setup is solid and correctly configured for an automated code review bot. The prompt is comprehensive and should elicit useful feedback. The main point for improvement is the commit message to accurately reflect the nature of the change (adding a new file).

Recommendation:
Please update the commit title to accurately reflect that this is the addition of a new workflow file, rather than a modification of an existing prompt. For example: "feat: Add Gemini Code Reviewer workflow".