Update README.md

[RomanMazyrin]

Added Indenting to code examples

---

Important

Add indentation to code examples in README.md for improved readability.

• Formatting:
  • Added indentation to Python code examples in README.md for better readability.
  • Added indentation to JavaScript code examples in README.md for better readability.

^{This description was created by for d4e29dd. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[entelligence-ai-pr-reviews]

LGTM 👍

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
composio	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Mar 19, 2025 0:56am

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to d4e29dd in 2 minutes and 14 seconds

More details

• Looked at 127 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 13 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. README.md:228

• Draft comment:
  This assistant creation code is duplicative. Consider reusing the existing implementation, possibly parameterizing the model name if needed.

• GitHub assistant creation (demo.mjs)

• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

2. README.md:148

• Draft comment:
  Nice improvement: the 'api_key' argument is now properly indented, enhancing readability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. README.md:157

• Draft comment:
  Good job indenting the actions array; this increases clarity of the function argument.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. README.md:165

• Draft comment:
  The assistant creation call now uses consistent indentation for parameters, which improves legibility.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. README.md:175

• Draft comment:
  Consistent indentation in the thread message creation call enhances the visual structure of the code sample.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. README.md:183

• Draft comment:
  The thread run creation call is now properly indented; this is in line with best practices for readability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. README.md:229

• Draft comment:
  In the JavaScript example, the function createGithubAssistant now has well-indented parameters, making it easier to follow.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. README.md:237

• Draft comment:
  The executeAssistantTask function arguments are consistently indented, which improves clarity significantly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. README.md:250

• Draft comment:
  The async IIFE is now consistently indented, maintaining the overall style of the JavaScript code sample.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

10. README.md:148

• Draft comment:
  Good job improving the indentation in the Python code examples. The multi-line function arguments (e.g. in OpenAI(api_key=...) and other calls) are now consistently indented, which boosts readability without altering functionality.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

11. README.md:229

• Draft comment:
  The JavaScript example now uses proper indentation for object literals and function bodies. This consistent formatting improves clarity and aligns with best practices.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

12. README.md:160

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The repository owner in the task string is 'composiodev' but should likely be 'composiohq' for consistency with the rest of the documentation.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

13. README.md:233

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The model string 'gpt-4o' may be a typo. Consider verifying if this should be 'gpt-4-turbo' (or the intended model) to maintain consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

Workflow ID: wflow_QAwE8WwC9nQt9Avv

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[shreysingla11]

There's an inconsistency in the model name between Python and JavaScript examples. The Python example uses gpt-4-turbo while the JavaScript example uses gpt-4o. This should be updated to match for consistency.

[shreysingla11]

The JavaScript example has duplicate model specification. It's defined both in the assistant creation and in the run creation. Consider removing the model parameter from the run creation since it's already specified in the assistant.

[shreysingla11]

Code Review Summary

The PR improves code readability through better indentation and formatting, which is a positive change. However, there are a few issues that should be addressed:

1. Model Name Inconsistency:

   • Python example uses gpt-4-turbo
   • JavaScript example uses gpt-4o
   • These should be consistent across examples

2. Duplicate Model Specification in JavaScript:

   • Model is specified both in assistant creation and run creation
   • Should be specified only once at assistant creation

3. Indentation Style:

   • Python uses 4 spaces
   • JavaScript uses variable indentation
   • Consider standardizing the indentation style

The formatting improvements are good and make the code more readable, but these issues should be fixed for better documentation quality.