Bots that fix what an automated check flags #97

A scanner, linter, type checker or audit is good at finding things and bad at fixing them. The list of findings sits there, and someone still has to turn each one into an actual code change: the right fix for that rule, in that file, that doesn't break anything else.

Surfacing a finding in front of a reviewer is a solved job; plenty of tools already do it well as a PR summary, inline comments or a report. What's left is writing the fix and proving it holds: applying the change the finding calls for, running the project's own checks to confirm the finding is gone and nothing else broke, and opening the pull request with that evidence attached, so a person reviews a correct diff instead of starting from a report.

We'd take bots across kinds of check: security scanners, type checkers, accessibility checkers, linters, language-specific static analysis, and repo or config audits, each with its own idea of what a correct fix looks like.

New here? gitbot runs Claude Code, Codex or OpenCode as reusable bots on your own machine, with your logins and your files. You define a bot once, a name and a job in plain English, and run it in as many folders as you like.

npm install -g @gitbot-hq/gitbot
gitbot start

Built one for this? Finished bots go into this library, each listed under the GitHub account that built it. In GitBot, the share menu on a bot has a Publish to Marketplace option that opens the pull request to add it. Your instructions go in as written.

These stay open after the first bot lands. And yours doesn't need to be general: people install the bot that's built for the stack they're already on.