Version Packages - #278
Merged
Merged
Conversation
khan-actions-bot
requested review from
a team,
jeresig and
kevinb-khan
and removed request for
a team
July 21, 2026 18:13
github-actions
Bot
force-pushed
the
changeset-release/main
branch
5 times, most recently
from
July 21, 2026 18:47
96cd72c to
7dcbbd7
Compare
github-actions
Bot
force-pushed
the
changeset-release/main
branch
from
July 21, 2026 19:43
7dcbbd7 to
313214a
Compare
jwbron
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2026
…ew-v1.7.0 Re-ran the 3-way merge against the fresh release (#278: the Fable-5 correctness reviewer, the recap label fix + collapsed non-blocking recap with fail-closed unknown labels, and the unbounded-read lens). One conflict, the ref: pin, resolved override-comment + new version; source:/ref: both at review-v1.7.0; gh aw compile clean. The content guard verifies every remaining hunk vs the v1.7.0 tag carries a LOCAL OVERRIDE marker; full suite 1016 passing.
jwbron
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2026
## Why The reviewer installed on this repo (`.github/workflows/review.md`) was still pinned at `review-v1.4.1`, the version `gh aw add` recorded on install (#241, 2026-07-10), and had never been updated since: five releases behind the shared source (now bumped all the way to v1.7.0, released today in #278 with the Fable-correctness reviewer, the recap fixes, and the unbounded-read lens). This surfaced on PR #266, where re-review 4739236283 posted a REQUEST_CHANGES whose entire body was "Changes requested — see inline comments." with **zero** inline comments attached (the blocking thread lives on an earlier review). Later releases address exactly that: - **v1.5.0 (#244/#246)**: the code-rendered re-review accountability section, which enumerates every still-open prior thread (linked, blocking first, "as of \<sha\>") in the verdict body. - **v1.6.1 (#262)**: REQUEST_CHANGES is always submitted with a non-empty body; the empty-body path silently downgraded a blocking verdict to COMMENTED (observed on Khan/webapp#40793). ## Why not `gh aw update` The documented update path fails on this repo: gh-aw v0.81.6's `resolveLatestRef` only treats the pinned ref as a tag when `isSemanticVersionTag()` accepts it, and that check (`semverutil.IsValid`) rejects changesets-style prefixed tags like `review-v1.4.1`. It falls through to branch resolution and 404s (`failed to get latest commit for branch review-v1.4.1`). Might be worth an upstream issue; until then, updates of this workflow are manual. ## What this PR does - Replicates `gh aw update`'s 3-way merge by hand: base = `review-v1.4.1` source, ours = installed copy, theirs = `review-v1.7.0` source (identical to current main), then `gh aw compile review`. Diff vs the v1.6.1 source is exactly the documented `KHAN/ACTIONS LOCAL OVERRIDE` edits and nothing else: - the same-repo fork guard in `if:` (public-repo hardening); - the `observability:` block stays commented out (the `GH_AW_OTEL_SENTRY_*` secrets still exist neither on this repo nor at org level; the block hard-fails the agent job when they are missing); - `max-ai-credits: 2500`, now mirrored into the new `REVIEW_MAX_AI_CREDITS` env var per the KEEP-IN-SYNC rule v1.6.0 added; - `source:` and the lib checkout `ref:` both bumped to `review-v1.7.0` (kept in lockstep, enforced by `review-pins.test.ts`). - **Per review: the "every difference is a documented override" claim is now CI-enforced, not hand-audited.** `review-pins.test.ts` diffs the installed copy against `workflows/review/review.md` at the pinned tag (fetching the tag when the checkout is shallow) and fails when any hunk lacks a `KHAN/ACTIONS LOCAL OVERRIDE` marker, so the next manual bump cannot silently drop an override or an upstream hunk. - **Per review: the re-review mode dial is no longer part of this PR.** The motivating defect is fixed by the version bump alone (the non-empty-body rule and the accountability section apply at the default `full` mode), so enabling a reduced-depth mode is a separable decision; it follows in its own PR starting at `scoped` rather than `flip-gated`, per the review's depth argument, once a re-review or two has been observed on v1.7.0 (#277). ## Verification - `pnpm test`: passes, including the new content guard, `review-pins.test.ts` pin consistency (source/ref/lock literals all `review-v1.7.0`), and `version-sync.test.ts`. The guard was negative-tested: an unmarked stray edit to the installed copy fails it. - `gh aw compile review`: 0 errors, 0 warnings. - No changeset needed: all three files are under `.github/`, the check's default exclusion, and the shared `workflows/review` package is untouched. Author: jwbron Reviewers: github-actions[bot], jwbron, jeresig, kevinb-khan Required Reviewers: Approved By: github-actions[bot], jeresig Checks: ✅ 8 checks were successful, ⏭️ 1 check has been skipped Pull Request URL: #276
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR was opened by the Changesets release GitHub action. When you're ready to do a release, you can merge this and the packages will be published to npm automatically. If you're not ready to do a release yet, that's fine, whenever you add more changesets to main, this PR will be updated.
Releases
review@1.7.0
Minor Changes
correctness-reviewerfrom Opus 4.8 to Fable 5 (claude-fable-5). Bug-finding recall is the workflow's load-bearing metric, and the 2026-07-20 pooled A/B's recall gain (83% to 90%, true misses down 43%) concentrated in correctness-adjacent rows, so the 2x per-token price goes to the one role where the measurement supports it. Deliberately NOT moved, per review:claim-validatorstays Opus at xhigh (the Fable arm measurably did not improve the precision gate: noise 43% to 49%, one wrong blocking flag on a clean case); the opt-in whole-change reviewers (holistic,completeness,test-adequacy) stay Opus (the A/B measured the full-Fable bundle, so their contribution is unattributed, and both known consumers enable them in ROUTING so they are not free in practice); the procedural roles (orchestrator,thread-reconciler,skill-auditor,conventions) stay Opus (instruction-following over staged context, and the orchestrator is the token-heaviest agent under a 20-minute timeout); and the specialist lenses stay Opus because Fable's cyber safety classifiers can refuse benign security-focused analysis, and a refused security lens would be a silent coverage hole.first-principlesalready ran Fable 5. The firewall pricing pin (awf v0.27.27) and themodels:cost block already coverclaude-fable-5, so no sandbox or pricing change is needed.retention-unbounded-prunein all 6 drift samples (a query loading an entire user-sized result set viapageSize: "all"), and its own suggested fix for an adjacent bug recommended the same unbounded-read pattern, so no lens was reasoning about memory-bounded reads at all. The correctness lens now asks a mandatory bounds question for every query, fetch, or bulk-read call the diff touches (what bounds the result size; pageSize "all", missing LIMIT, fetching a whole set to act on part of it), states the expected shape (page or batch it, so a deliberately bounded per-invocation read is the fix, not a further defect), and explicitly authorizes a second finding in the same statement; the first iteration (a taxonomy item in the defect-class list) measured 0/10 on the targeted powered run because the model reported only the off-by-one in the same query and read "fetch all rows to delete them" as intentional. The caching-resource specialist gains a matching review rule and anunbounded-read-materializationtri-state hunt. Recall-affecting by design; priced by the per-PR A/B and a targeted powered run on golden-retention-lifecycle-1.Patch Changes
eval/arbiter-calibration.tsreplays the labeled pairs through the real arbiter seam and reports per-pair yes-rates plus false-accept/false-reject rates (~$0.02 per run at 3 samples/pair); the deterministic suite pins the set's invariants (10 pairs, 4 mismatches, none deterministically matchable, prompt-builder compatibility). Measurement only: the arbiter prompt is unchanged, since changing it is a ruler change that the calibration numbers should justify first.--force-arms: the weekly drift watch and manual wobble controls) no longer read as an A/B. The single-run, multi-repeat, and aggregate renderers retitle themselves "Review wobble control (identical arms)", relabel the Baseline/Candidate columns to Arm A/Arm B, state up front that between-arm deltas are run-to-run wobble, and the aggregate leads with the noise-floor bands (on an identical-arm pool the bands are the product; the per-case table is the raw material). Motivated by the first scheduled drift report (PR review: eval drift report 2026-07-20 #265), whose baseline-vs-candidate framing over one prompt invited reading noise as a result. Also makes a contaminated noise floor a red run instead of a footnote: the drift workflow now fails (after uploading the report and opening the visibility PR) when the aggregate flags case asymmetry, i.e. the pooled samples scored different case sets because the budget skipped the corpus tail. The budget resize itself rides with the corpus-growth stack, which owns the sizing.**unknown**recap labels: stagedthreads.jsonbodies do not reliably preserve the posted markdown (on Khan/webapp#40561 every opener arrived with the**wrapping stripped), so the accountability renderer's bold-only label parse failed on every line.parseLeadingLabel/excerptOpeningCommentnow also accept a plainlabel (decoration):form bound to the closed label vocabulary, and Step 3's staging instruction pins the verbatim-body contract. This also repairs the flip gate'skeptBlockingCountinput for markdown-stripped stagings, which previously undercounted kept blocking threads. (2) Shrink the recap: kept blocking threads stay visible; kept non-blocking threads fold into a collapsed<details>block with a count, so a re-review stops re-listing every open nit verbatim on every push (three recap walls in two days on webapp#40561). Accountability is unchanged; only the notification surface shrinks. A third piece (a job-level draft gate) was dropped in review: teams want reviews on draft PRs, and on push-triggered installs the gate would have left no way to request one.