WorkBuddy's Most Stable Use Case: Turning Review Criteria into Templates

I'm skeptical of code-review Agents that claim to get "smarter with use." Recently, I saw an article about ECC Kiro's code-reviewer. The methodology was pretty rigid: grab the diff, define scope, read surrounding code, apply a checklist, and finally report only issues with confidence > 80%; severity levels are CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW—if there's nothing worth reporting, stay silent.

Report only confirmed issues, zero findings means pass.

My first thought was WorkBuddy. I've used WorkBuddy for about a month. I previously wrote about table merging errors, which turned out to be mostly due to selecting the wrong mode. Office tools are similar: no need to let them reason on the fly; solidifying actions into templates is more stable.

Our team needs to compile weekly review daily reports by aggregating comments from code merge requests, meeting minutes from Feishu Docs, and defect lists exported from testing. We used to do this manually in Excel, using VLOOKUP to patch fields back and forth. Now I've moved this workflow into WorkBuddy. New users shouldn't rush to dump files. Open WorkBuddy, find Template Center on the left sidebar; in my version, it's in the left nav, with New Template in the top right. Name it PR Review Daily, select type Table Processing, do NOT select Free Q&A. A template pre-fixes input fields and output formats; Free Q&A is more like chatting and tends to miss columns.

Upload source files. My environment exports Feishu Docs as .xlsx (Excel files), with fields including file, line, severity, confidence, summary, owner, status. WorkBuddy shows a column preview on the right, confirming it recognized headers as fields. If column names don't appear, click Field Mapping and map Severity to severity, Confidence to confidence. Don't skip this step. I once changed a header from Level to severity, and the template went haywire.

In the rules section, fill in fixed instructions: filter for severity being CRITICAL or HIGH AND confidence >= 80; merge MEDIUM by file and rule; skip LOW; skip issues in unchanged code, except for CRITICAL security items; if no records match, output Zero findings, pass. Confidence is how sure the reviewer or tool is about the issue's validity; setting the threshold too low creates noise everywhere. I use 80 because our team accepts fewer false positives than missed issues, but this might not apply to everyone.

Configure the output template: title uses the date, body starts with Conclusion, followed by the table. Click Dry Run; the right side generates a daily report preview. Confirm that Zero findings, pass appears correctly, then click Export or copy to Feishu Doc. I usually export to a shared folder with a fixed filename review_daily_YYYYMMDD.xlsx. After seeing the success prompt, double-check severity and owner against the source table, and you can confidently share it with the team.

Set permissions while you're at it. Keep template ownership solely with me; team members have read-only access to the shared folder; testers can suggest field changes but cannot directly modify live templates.

In the Feishu shared folder, set WorkBuddy's output account to read-only for source tables and write-only for the output directory. This allows rollback if errors occur and prevents blame games during meetings about who changed the table. If it could actually replace me in meetings, I'd be too scared to use it.

Daily maintenance involves three things. Before running every Friday, check source table column names; after running, check for null values in confidence; test rule changes by Copying Template first. From my experience, letting it do one thing at a time is much more accurate than piling requirements into a single paragraph.

Looking ahead, office Agents will likely follow the path of code reviews: establish thresholds, grading, and pass criteria before talking about intelligence. Tools like WorkBuddy save time by baking contentious standards into templates. As long as it works, that's fine.