feat(routing): validate free-form cost_preference routing hint

[seonghobae]

Summary

• Expand routing validation with free-form cost_preference: free_first | balanced | quality | cheapest.
• Type-check latency_tolerant (boolean) and priority (interactive|normal|bulk).
• Carry cost_preference on RoutingHints for orchestrator/cost-router consumers.
• Main-base Semgrep nosemgrep for audited cost_ledger SQL + orchestrator TLS/urllib FPs.

Buyer value

Cost-sensitive buyers need a request-level free-form preference among equal-capability agents (free-first vs quality). Schema validation makes the gateway honest about accepted hints instead of dropping unknown routing keys.

Test plan

• python -m pytest tests/test_routing_cost_preference.py -q (4 passed)
• CI unit + Semgrep

Merge note

Auto-merge armed when green; blocked only on require_last_push_approval (sole collaborator).

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 16 minutes

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: e9584651-9c64-449a-95dc-19a810e34c8b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6841b71 and 81d0c2d.

📒 Files selected for processing (5)

• contextual_orchestrator/batch_routing.py
• contextual_orchestrator/cost_ledger.py
• contextual_orchestrator/orchestrator.py
• contextual_orchestrator/server.py
• tests/test_routing_cost_preference.py

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 81d0c2dabfc6f79fcf4aef26e9d1615fae04c18d.

• Head SHA: 81d0c2dabfc6f79fcf4aef26e9d1615fae04c18d

• Workflow run: 31703116066

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (4 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (4 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Test: test_routing_cost_preference.py"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_routing_cost_preference.py"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 81d0c2dabfc6f79fcf4aef26e9d1615fae04c18d
• Workflow run: 31703116066
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 81d0c2dabfc6f79fcf4aef26e9d1615fae04c18d.

• Head SHA: 81d0c2dabfc6f79fcf4aef26e9d1615fae04c18d

• Workflow run: 31703116066

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (4 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (4 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Test: test_routing_cost_preference.py"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_routing_cost_preference.py"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading