// Compose the Prompt for LLM Request:
// PR Requirements + PR Body
let input = 
  REQUIREMENTS.to_string() +
  "\n\n# Does this PR meet the NuttX Requirements? Please be concise\n\n" +
  &body;

# Here are the requirements for a NuttX PR
## Summary [...requirements...]
## Impact  [...requirements...]
## Testing [...requirements...]

# Does this PR meet the NuttX Requirements? Please be concise
## Summary
Document stack and backtrace dump for Espressif SoCs [...more...]

## Impact
Fix backtrace dump on assertions considering assertions triggered by tasks or during an interrupt service.

## Testing
Internal CI testing with HW on all Xtensa-based devices [...more...]

// Init the Gemini Client (Pro 1.5)
let client = Client::new_from_model(
  Model::Gemini1_5Pro,
  env::var("GEMINI_API_KEY").unwrap().to_string()
);

// Compose the Prompt for Gemini Request:
// PR Requirements + PR Body
let input = 
  REQUIREMENTS.to_string() +
  "\n\n# Does this PR meet the NuttX Requirements? Please be concise\n\n" +
  &body;

// Compose the Gemini Request
let txt_request = Request {
  contents: vec![Content {
    role: Role::User,
    parts: vec![Part {
      text: Some(input.to_string()),
      inline_data: None,
      file_data: None,
      video_metadata: None,
    }],
  }],
  tools: vec![],
  safety_settings: vec![],
  generation_config: None,
  system_instruction: None,
};

// Send the Gemini Request
let response = client
  .post(30, &txt_request)
  .await?;

// Get the Gemini Response
let response_text = 
  response.rest().unwrap()
  .candidates.first().unwrap()
  .content.parts.first().unwrap()
  .text.clone().unwrap();

/// Bump up the 2 PR Reactions: 00 > 01 > 10 > 11
/// Position 0 is the Rocket Reaction, Position 1 is the Eye Reaction
async fn bump_reactions(issues: &IssueHandler<'_>, pr_id: u64, reactions: (Option<u64>, Option<u64>)) -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
  match reactions {
    // (Rocket, Eye)
    (None,     None)    => { create_reaction(issues, pr_id, ReactionContent::Rocket).await?; }
    (Some(id), None)    => { delete_reaction(issues, pr_id, id).await?; create_reaction(issues, pr_id, ReactionContent::Eyes).await?; }
    (None,     Some(_)) => { create_reaction(issues, pr_id, ReactionContent::Rocket).await?; }
    (Some(_),  Some(_)) => { panic!("Reaction Overflow") }
  }
  Ok(())
}

// Fetch the 20 Newest Pull Requests that are Open
let pr_list = octocrab
  .pulls(owner, repo)
  .list()
  .state(params::State::Open)
  .sort(params::pulls::Sort::Created)
  .direction(params::Direction::Descending)
  .per_page(20)
  .send()
  .await?;

// Every 5 Seconds: Process the next PR fetched
for pr in pr_list {
  let pr_id = pr.number;
  process_pr(&pulls, &issues, pr_id)
    .await?;
  sleep(Duration::from_secs(5));
}

// Skip if PR contains Comments
if pr.comments.unwrap() > 0 { return Ok(()); }

// Skip if PR Size is Unknown or Extra Small
let labels = pr.labels.unwrap();
let size_xs: Vec<Label> = labels
  .into_iter()
  .filter(|l| l.name == "Size: XS")
  .collect();
if labels.is_empty() || size_xs.len() > 0 { return Ok(()); }

// Get the PR Body
let body = pr.body.unwrap_or("".to_string());

// Fetch the PR Commits. TODO: Will change `pull_number` to `pr_commits`
let commits = octocrab
  .pulls(owner, repo);
  .pull_number(pr_id)
  .commits()
  .await;
let commits = commits.unwrap().items;

// Omitted: Check for Empty Commit Message

// Omitted: Validate PR Body with Gemini LLM
...
// Post the Gemini Response as PR Comment
let comment = octocrab
  .issues(owner, repo);
  .create_comment(pr_id, comment_text)
  .await?;

## For Gemini Token: Browse to Google AI Studio > Get API Key > Create API Key > Create API Key In New Project
## https://aistudio.google.com/app/apikey
export GEMINI_API_KEY=...

## For GitHub Token: Browse to GitHub Settings > Developer Settings > Tokens (Classic) > Generate New Token (Classic)
## Check the following:
## repo (Full control of private repositories)
## repo:status (Access commit status)
## repo_deployment (Access deployment status)
## public_repo (Access public repositories)
## repo:invite (Access repository invitations)
## security_events (Read and write security events)
export GITHUB_TOKEN=...

## Show the logs
set -x
export RUST_LOG=info 
export RUST_BACKTRACE=1

## Download our PR Review Bot
git clone https://github.com/lupyuen/nuttx-pr-bot
cd nuttx-pr-bot

## Handle PRs for NuttX Kernel and Apps every 10 minutes
for (( ; ; ))
do
  ## For NuttX Kernel Repo: github.com/apache/nuttx
  cargo run -- --owner apache --repo nuttx
  sleep 300

  ## For NuttX Apps Repo: github.com/apache/nuttx-apps
  cargo run -- --owner apache --repo nuttx-apps
  sleep 300
done

## Handle PRs for NuttX Kernel Repo: github.com/apache/nuttx
$ cargo run --owner apache --repo nuttx
warning: use of deprecated method `octocrab::pulls::PullRequestHandler::<'octo>::pull_number`: specific PR builder transitioned to pr_review_actions, reply_to_comment, reply_to_comment
  --> src/main.rs:141:10
141 |         .pull_number(pr_id)
Running `target/debug/nuttx-pr-bot`

https://api.github.com/repos/apache/nuttx/pulls/13554
PR Body:
  "## Summary\r\ni2c: Optimize access to private data\r\n## Impact\r\ni2c_driver\r\n## Testing\r\nLocal iic testing\r\n"
  ...
Gemini Response:
  Rest(GeminiResponse {candidates: [Candidate {content: Content role: Model,parts: [Part {text: Some(
  "**No, this PR does not meet the NuttX requirements.**\n\n**Missing Information:**\n\n* **Summary:** \n    * Lacks a clear explanation of why the change is necessary. Is it a bug fix, performance improvement, or code cleanup?\n    * Doesn't describe the functional part of the code being changed within the i2c driver. \n    *  Missing details on how the optimization works. \n    *  No mention of related issues.\n* **Impact:**\n    * All impact sections are marked as \"i2c_driver,\" which is too vague.\n    *  The description should clearly state whether the impact is \"NO\" or \"YES\" and provide specific details if applicable. For example, does the change affect any specific architectures, boards, or drivers?\n* **Testing:**\n    * Lacks details about the local setup (host OS, target architecture, board configuration).\n    *  \"Local iic testing\" is insufficient. Provide specific test cases and commands used.\n    *  No testing logs provided. \n\n**To meet the NuttX requirements, the PR needs to provide comprehensive information in each section. ** \n"),
  ...
Response Text:
  "**No, this PR does not meet the NuttX requirements.**\n\n**Missing Information:**\n\n* **Summary:** \n    * Lacks a clear explanation of why the change is necessary. Is it a bug fix, performance improvement, or code cleanup?\n    * Doesn't describe the functional part of the code being changed within the i2c driver. \n    *  Missing details on how the optimization works. \n    *  No mention of related issues.\n* **Impact:**\n    * All impact sections are marked as \"i2c_driver,\" which is too vague.\n    *  The description should clearly state whether the impact is \"NO\" or \"YES\" and provide specific details if applicable. For example, does the change affect any specific architectures, boards, or drivers?\n* **Testing:**\n    * Lacks details about the local setup (host OS, target architecture, board configuration).\n    *  \"Local iic testing\" is insufficient. Provide specific test cases and commands used.\n    *  No testing logs provided. \n\n**To meet the NuttX requirements, the PR needs to provide comprehensive information in each section. ** \n"
  ...
PR Comment:
  Comment {body: Some(
  "[**\\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues)\n\n\n\n**No, this PR does not meet the NuttX requirements.**\n\n**Missing Information:**\n\n* **Summary:** \n    * Lacks a clear explanation of why the change is necessary. Is it a bug fix, performance improvement, or code cleanup?\n    * Doesn't describe the functional part of the code being changed within the i2c driver. \n    *  Missing details on how the optimization works. \n    *  No mention of related issues.\n* **Impact:**\n    * All impact sections are marked as \"i2c_driver,\" which is too vague.\n    *  The description should clearly state whether the impact is \"NO\" or \"YES\" and provide specific details if applicable. For example, does the change affect any specific architectures, boards, or drivers?\n* **Testing:**\n    * Lacks details about the local setup (host OS, target architecture, board configuration).\n    *  \"Local iic testing\" is insufficient. Provide specific test cases and commands used.\n    *  No testing logs provided. \n\n**To meet the NuttX requirements, the PR needs to provide comprehensive information in each section. ** \n",),
  ...
https://api.github.com/repos/apache/nuttx/pulls/13551
Skipping PR with comments: 13551