How to use a Righthand with GitLab

Make merge-request readiness an evidence question

Righthand can help prepare a GitLab merge-request review queue for one project. The report should show the current revision, source and target branches, explicit reviewers, and missing checks. It should give the maintainer useful questions instead of declaring readiness from a single status field.

GitLab's merge-request reference describes project-scoped identifiers, branches, head commit evidence, and detailedmergestatus. Keep project identity with the merge-request IID. The same IID can appear in different projects and identify unrelated work.

Define the project and evidence required

Provide the project URL or ID, target branch, reporting interval, and review policy. For an illustrative weekly queue, include open non-draft requests targeting the release branch and flag those whose latest revision lacks the required review evidence.

Check the available GitLab tools through integrations. A merge-request read does not automatically include pipeline or discussion reads. Use an approved browser review or supplied export for missing evidence, and state its snapshot time. Do not describe partial coverage as a complete project audit.

A complete example brief

At 3 PM America/Los_Angeles on Wednesday, review the named project's open merge requests targeting the release branch. Return a private queue with project ID, IID, URL, source branch, target branch, head SHA, draft state, and available reviewer and pipeline evidence. List unresolved discussions only when the relevant source is accessible. Do not approve, merge, or rerun pipelines. Send to me for maintainer review. Reconcile the request count and tie each pipeline result to its actual revision.

The example is illustrative. The project policy remains authoritative for approval and release requirements. A mergeable status can coexist with an outstanding process requirement.

Show an actionable output

An example entry might say: “Project A, MR 18; pipeline source covers an earlier SHA; new revision needs check evidence; maintainer decision pending.” The assistant should not convert an old successful pipeline into a claim that the latest revision passed.

Separate a failed check from an unavailable result. The maintainer needs to know whether work failed or whether the connection could not retrieve the evidence. Keep any technical explanation tied to the actual log excerpt and avoid inventing a root cause from a status alone.

Reconcile branches and repeat runs

Use project identity and IID across runs. A renamed branch or changed title should update the existing queue entry. A new head SHA requires refreshing the evidence even when the merge-request number remains the same.

Permission changes may hide discussions or pipelines. Pagination can omit requests from a large queue. Report the missing coverage and hold readiness conclusions. If supported merges are authorized later, verify the resulting merge state and commit; serving the change still needs separate deployment evidence.

Set connection access through Righthand's permissions guide. Review plans for ongoing maintainer support and keep the final merge decision with the named owner.