Keep mobile empty WBS state in view - #204
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR improves the mobile “empty WBS” experience by constraining the empty-state panel to the visible .table-scroll viewport (instead of the full wide table width), and adds an E2E regression test to ensure the empty-state panel + CTA row remain within the mobile table viewport.
Changes:
- Add a dedicated
.empty-state-cellclass to the empty-state<td>so it can be styled independently of the wide WBS table. - Constrain
.table-emptywidth inside the empty-state cell (desktop + mobile rules) so the empty-state panel doesn’t render at the table’s min-width on mobile. - Add a Playwright test that validates the empty-state and action buttons stay inside the
.table-scrollviewport on mobile.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
app.js |
Adds an empty-state-cell class to the empty-state row cell to enable targeted styling. |
styles.css |
Constrains empty-state panel width to the visible viewport (with mobile override) and removes cell padding for a flush layout. |
tests/e2e/scopeweave.spec.js |
Adds a mobile regression test checking empty-state and CTA bounds stay within .table-scroll. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues. FindingsNo blocking findings. SummaryApproval 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.
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow (4 files)"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow (4 files)"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (7 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (7 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (3 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (3 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
|
![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 exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH app.js:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (app.js, styles.css, tests/e2e/scopeweave.spec.js); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
3d2014b8ecc5ed1f7e3aaac03e3936d98648d013 - Workflow run: 28499787397
- Workflow attempt: 1
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test: scopeweave.spec.js"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: scopeweave.spec.js"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
3d2014b to
45f7459
Compare
Dismissing: this is not a substantive review. Per the review body and thread, OpenCode exhausted its configured model pool and the opencode-review check failed with CHECKS_LOOKUP_FAILED (an internal 'gh api --slurp --jq' usage bug in the OpenCode action), so it never produced a source-backed conclusion — it explicitly states this 'is not approval evidence' rather than identifying any concrete defect. It is also bound to superseded commit 3d2014b; HEAD is now 45f7459 (rebased onto develop to pick up #235's central-security-scan dedup). The only substantive review feedback (Copilot: hard-coded gutter constants + missing render wait) was addressed in the earlier commit and those threads are resolved. Re-running OpenCode is an org-infra action fix, not a repo change.
Triage + remediation (neglected-PR sweep)This PR carries unique, un-merged value — the mobile empty-WBS-state viewport fix + regression test are not on What was blocking it, and what I did:
Remaining org-infra item: the No merge performed. |
|
Follow-up security/checks remediation pushed in What changed:
Verification:
Local caveats: full |
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore 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 head6a74896ad4158977d41a490cf3b7b610c23d430b. -
Head SHA:
6a74896ad4158977d41a490cf3b7b610c23d430b -
Workflow run: 29033095490
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Evidence
- Head SHA:
6a74896ad4158977d41a490cf3b7b610c23d430b - Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
- Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.
Python coverage with missing-line report
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/scopeweave/scopeweave
configfile: pyproject.toml
collected 3 items
tests/config/test_strix_static_repo_adaptations.py ... [100%]
============================== 3 passed in 0.07s ===============================
Name Stmts Miss Cover Missing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tests/config/test_strix_static_repo_adaptations.py 33 0 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 33 0 100%
- Result: PASS
Python docstring coverage
- Result: DEFERRED
- Reason: package.json defines check:python-docstrings; repository-owned docstring coverage runs after package dependency setup.
JavaScript/TypeScript dependencies (npm ci)
added 5 packages, and audited 6 packages in 1s
2 packages are looking for funding
run `npm fund` for details
found 0 vulnerabilities
- Result: PASS
Repository docstring coverage
> scopeweave@1.0.0 check:python-docstrings
> node scripts/ci/static_coverage_evidence.mjs docstrings
Python files are CI helpers or tests; runtime docstring coverage is not applicable.
- Result: PASS
JavaScript/TypeScript coverage script
> scopeweave@1.0.0 coverage
> node scripts/ci/static_coverage_evidence.mjs coverage && npm run test:fuzz
Wrote static app coverage gate evidence to coverage/coverage-summary.json.
> scopeweave@1.0.0 test:fuzz
> playwright test tests/e2e/csv_formula_fuzz.spec.js
Running 1 test using 1 worker
F
1) tests/e2e/csv_formula_fuzz.spec.js:9:3 › CSV formula fuzzing › neutralizes spreadsheet formula prefixes before CSV escaping
Error: browserType.launch: Executable doesn't exist at /home/runner/.cache/ms-playwright/chromium_headless_shell-1228/chrome-headless-shell-linux64/chrome-headless-shell
╔════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ Looks like Playwright was just installed or updated. ║
║ Please run the following command to download new browsers: ║
║ ║
║ npx playwright install ║
║ ║
║ <3 Playwright Team ║
╚════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
Error Context: test-results/csv_formula_fuzz-CSV-formu-7671f-refixes-before-CSV-escaping/error-context.md
1 failed
tests/e2e/csv_formula_fuzz.spec.js:9:3 › CSV formula fuzzing › neutralizes spreadsheet formula prefixes before CSV escaping
- Result: FAIL (exit 1)
JavaScript/TypeScript coverage threshold
coverage/coverage-summary.json:
statements: 100%
branches: 100%
functions: 100%
lines: 100%
- Result: PASS
Docker runtime version
Client: Docker Engine - Community
Version: 28.0.4
API version: 1.48
Go version: go1.23.7
Git commit: b8034c0
Built: Tue Mar 25 15:07:16 2025
OS/Arch: linux/amd64
Context: default
Server: Docker Engine - Community
Engine:
Version: 28.0.4
API version: 1.48 (minimum version 1.24)
Go version: go1.23.7
Git commit: 6430e49
Built: Tue Mar 25 15:07:16 2025
OS/Arch: linux/amd64
Experimental: false
containerd:
Version: v2.2.5
GitCommit: e53c7c1516c3b2bff98eb76f1f4117477e6f4e66
runc:
Version: 1.3.6
GitCommit: v1.3.6-0-g491b69ba
docker-init:
Version: 0.19.0
GitCommit: de40ad0
- Result: PASS
Docker build (Dockerfile)
#0 building with "default" instance using docker driver
#1 [internal] load build definition from Dockerfile
#1 transferring dockerfile: 740B 0.0s done
#1 DONE 0.1s
#2 [auth] library/nginx:pull token for registry-1.docker.io
#2 DONE 0.0s
#3 [internal] load metadata for docker.io/library/nginx:1.25-alpine@sha256:516475cc129da42866742567714ddc681e5eed7b9ee0b9e9c015e464b4221a00
#3 DONE 0.4s
#4 [internal] load .dockerignore
#4 transferring context: 2B done
#4 DONE 0.0s
#5 [internal] load build context
#5 transferring context: 109.83kB done
#5 DONE 0.0s
#6 [1/5] FROM docker.io/library/nginx:1.25-alpine@sha256:516475cc129da42866742567714ddc681e5eed7b9ee0b9e9c015e464b4221a00
#6 resolve docker.io/library/nginx:1.25-alpine@sha256:516475cc129da42866742567714ddc681e5eed7b9ee0b9e9c015e464b4221a00 done
#6 extracting sha256:4abcf20661432fb2d719aaf90656f55c287f8ca915dc1c92ec14ff61e67fbaf8
#6 sha256:516475cc129da42866742567714ddc681e5eed7b9ee0b9e9c015e464b4221a00 9.07kB / 9.07kB done
#6 sha256:501d84f5d06487ff81e506134dc922ed4fd2080d5521eb5b6ee4054fa17d15c4 10.80kB / 10.80kB done
#6 sha256:fc21a1d387f514f53589abea6d67cd6b329dfd3c9059bc96a552af3b3c97b413 3.99MB / 3.99MB 0.1s done
#6 sha256:13fcfbc94648785b918ecc1af675ac5187cdfc30f4fdaf9afa8bd2e9dedf548b 954B / 954B 0.1s done
#6 sha256:5406ed7b06d9a94b5bd15843d2a1c7e38796a3ec5dc7f40f16f70cc1d045f453 1.21kB / 1.21kB 0.1s done
#6 sha256:8a3742a9529dc5c00974dfcf5e465be9f1606ff8a1911527b3928cf86ad57465 1.40kB / 1.40kB 0.1s done
#6 sha256:721fa00bc549df26b3e67cc558ff176112d4ba69847537766f3c28e171d180e7 2.50kB / 2.50kB done
#6 sha256:4abcf20661432fb2d719aaf90656f55c287f8ca915dc1c92ec14ff61e67fbaf8 3.41MB / 3.41MB 0.0s done
#6 sha256:e6ef242c157026935bf8a69e6cf19f8f6635e44507c813daf0cc644f2e22396b 629B / 629B 0.0s done
#6 sha256:d4bca490e609acaaf54ca73363442d31a31fd136a47a20a12370cf2025f0a10b 393B / 393B 0.1s done
#6 sha256:0d0c16747d2c6b6c26c064652afcb964c15f1b1e596ec052b2aa19b83948ae27 1.05MB / 13.04MB 0.1s
#6 extracting sha256:4abcf20661432fb2d719aaf90656f55c287f8ca915dc1c92ec14ff61e67fbaf8 0.1s done
#6 sha256:0d0c16747d2c6b6c26c064652afcb964c15f1b1e596ec052b2aa19b83948ae27 13.04MB / 13.04MB 0.1s done
#6 extracting sha256:fc21a1d387f514f53589abea6d67cd6b329dfd3c9059bc96a552af3b3c97b413 0.1s
#6 extracting sha256:fc21a1d387f514f53589abea6d67cd6b329dfd3c9059bc96a552af3b3c97b413 0.2s done
#6 extracting sha256:e6ef242c157026935bf8a69e6cf19f8f6635e44507c813daf0cc644f2e22396b
#6 extracting sha256:e6ef242c157026935bf8a69e6cf19f8f6635e44507c813daf0cc644f2e22396b done
#6 extracting sha256:13fcfbc94648785b918ecc1af675ac5187cdfc30f4fdaf9afa8bd2e9dedf548b done
#6 extracting sha256:d4bca490e609acaaf54ca73363442d31a31fd136a47a20a12370cf2025f0a10b done
#6 extracting sha256:5406ed7b06d9a94b5bd15843d2a1c7e38796a3ec5dc7f40f16f70cc1d045f453 done
#6 extracting sha256:8a3742a9529dc5c00974dfcf5e465be9f1606ff8a1911527b3928cf86ad57465 done
#6 extracting sha256:0d0c16747d2c6b6c26c064652afcb964c15f1b1e596ec052b2aa19b83948ae27 0.1s
#6 extracting sha256:0d0c16747d2c6b6c26c064652afcb964c15f1b1e596ec052b2aa19b83948ae27 0.3s done
#6 DONE 1.5s
#7 [2/5] COPY infra/nginx/default.conf /etc/nginx/conf.d/default.conf
#7 DONE 0.0s
#8 [3/5] COPY index.html 404.html app.js styles.css wbs.json /usr/share/nginx/html/
#8 DONE 0.0s
#9 [4/5] COPY docs/user-guide.md /usr/share/nginx/html/docs/
#9 DONE 0.0s
#10 [5/5] RUN touch /var/run/nginx.pid && chown -R nginx:nginx /var/run/nginx.pid /var/cache/nginx
#10 DONE 0.2s
#11 exporting to image
#11 exporting layers
#11 exporting layers 0.8s done
#11 writing image sha256:8a545e006de038e505a04600276fb5416c7cd048fe595d358bcbef1a06acf294 done
#11 naming to docker.io/library/opencode-review-6a74896ad4158977d41a490cf3b7b610c23d430b-dockerfile done
#11 DONE 0.8s
- Result: PASS
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test evidence: not proven passing
- Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
- Failure count: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: osvscanner.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: osvscanner.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (7 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (7 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (3 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (3 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Dismiss stale automated REQUEST_CHANGES from old head 6a74896: coverage-evidence failed there because Playwright browsers were missing. Current head 677e3bb installs Playwright Chromium for coverage/fuzz evidence, scopes CodeQL security-events permission at job level, has all GitHub Checks passing, has no open Medium+ code-scanning alerts, and has no unresolved review threads.
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 .github/workflows/codeql.yml, .github/workflows/osvscanner.yml, .github/workflows/scorecard-analysis.yml, .github/workflows/trivy.yml, Dockerfile, and 9 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 .github/workflows/codeql.yml 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: All tests pass, security issues resolved, and the change aligns with PR goals.
- Head SHA:
677e3bbebf0d97915a14fc71c0550024be203a6f - Workflow run: 29068954626
- Workflow attempt: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow (4 files)"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow (4 files)"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (7 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (7 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (3 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (3 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
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 .github/workflows/codeql.yml, .github/workflows/osvscanner.yml, .github/workflows/scorecard-analysis.yml, .github/workflows/trivy.yml, Dockerfile, and 9 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 .github/workflows/codeql.yml 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; all tests pass and security remediations are addressed.
- Head SHA:
a02357abf72742743026f2560e15610b5c49df83 - Workflow run: 29069224149
- Workflow attempt: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow (4 files)"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow (4 files)"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (7 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (7 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (3 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (3 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Summary
Product / Visual Evidence
Verification
pm run coverage
pm run check:python-docstrings