feat: 실사 close acceptance checklist 추가 - #901
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Note
Copilot couldn't run its full agentic review because no GitHub Actions runner was available. Make sure your repository has a runner available to run Copilot's review, or add a copilot-setup-steps.yml file specifying one with the runs-on attribute. See the docs for more details.
Adds a deterministic “diligence close acceptance checklist” and rollup “acceptance summary” to the evidence snapshot contract, then surfaces both in the Data Quality UI with supporting tests and planning docs.
Changes:
- Backend: extend
DataEvidenceSnapshotResponsewith acceptance checklist + summary models, and derive them from the Phase 29 traceability map. - Frontend: add TypeScript contract fields and render an acceptance summary card + checklist section in the Data Quality tab.
- Tests/docs: extend backend + frontend fixtures/assertions and add Phase plan documentation.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| frontend/src/components/data-layout/types.ts | Extends snapshot response types with acceptance checklist + summary shapes. |
| frontend/src/components/data-layout/QualityCheckTab.tsx | Renders acceptance summary + checklist UI in the Data Quality tab. |
| frontend/src/app/data/page.test.tsx | Adds fixture data and UI + copy-snapshot assertions for the new fields. |
| backend/api/data.py | Adds Pydantic models and deterministic derivation for checklist + summary. |
| backend/tests/test_data_api.py | Adds expected checklist/summary builders and asserts snapshot payload + content. |
| docs/superpowers/plans/2026-07-02-diligence-close-acceptance-summary.md | Documents Phase plan and acceptance criteria for the summary rollup. |
| docs/superpowers/plans/2026-07-02-diligence-close-acceptance-checklist.md | Documents Phase plan and acceptance criteria for the checklist projection. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
|
PR governance metadata gate is not ready for
|
OpenCode Review Overview
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Backend (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["API and service runtime"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["backend tests"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (10 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (10 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Frontend (3 files)"]
S3 --> I3["browser runtime and bundle"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Frontend (3 files)"]
R3 --> V3["frontend tests"]
|
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.
Findings
No blocking findings.
Summary
Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including backend/api/data.py, backend/tests/test_data_api.py, docs/superpowers/plans/2026-07-02-commercial-close-buyer-brief.md, docs/superpowers/plans/2026-07-02-commercial-close-buyer-review-runbook.md, docs/superpowers/plans/2026-07-02-commercial-close-execution-plan.md, and 10 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects backend/api/data.py to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.
- Result: APPROVE
- Reason: No blocking issues found; PR is well-scoped and mergeable.
- Head SHA:
01fe3812901db8b9718ba3eca9ac62179c0bcd54 - Workflow run: 28635292417
- Workflow attempt: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Backend (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["API and service runtime"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["backend tests"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (10 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (10 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Frontend (3 files)"]
S3 --> I3["browser runtime and bundle"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Frontend (3 files)"]
R3 --> V3["frontend tests"]
Summary
diligence_close_acceptance_checklistto the redacted evidence snapshot as a deterministic projection of the Phase 29 traceability map.Validation
python3 -m pytest backend/tests/test_data_api.py -q-> 9 passed, 1 skippedruff check backend/api/data.py backend/tests/test_data_api.py-> passednpm test -- src/app/data/page.test.tsx-> 12 passednpm run lint -- src/components/data-layout/QualityCheckTab.tsx src/components/data-layout/types.ts src/app/data/page.test.tsx-> passedgit diff --check-> passedNotes
.Jules/palette.mdand.Jules/sentinel.mdedits were intentionally preserved and excluded from this commit.