t1099: Wire response-scoring to pattern tracker#1634
Conversation
Score and compare operations now automatically sync results to the shared pattern tracker DB. This enables /route and /patterns to use A/B comparison data for data-driven model selection. Changes: - Add _sync_score_to_patterns() called after cmd_score - Add _sync_comparison_to_patterns() called after cmd_compare - Add _model_to_tier() mapping full model names to routing tiers - Add cmd_sync for bulk-syncing existing scoring data - Scores >= 3.5/5.0 recorded as SUCCESS_PATTERN, below as FAILURE_PATTERN - Pattern sync is opt-out via SCORING_NO_PATTERN_SYNC=1 - Gracefully no-ops if pattern-tracker-helper.sh is unavailable
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
🔍 Code Quality Report�[0;35m[MONITOR]�[0m Code Review Monitoring Report �[0;34m[INFO]�[0m Latest Quality Status: �[0;34m[INFO]�[0m Recent monitoring activity: 📈 Current Quality Metrics
Generated on: Wed Feb 18 02:53:35 UTC 2026 Generated by AI DevOps Framework Code Review Monitoring |
- Add 4 new tests for sync command and help output - Update response-scoring.md with integration section - Update score-responses.md command doc - All 45 tests pass, ShellCheck clean
Summary of ChangesHello @marcusquinn, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request integrates the response scoring mechanism with the pattern tracker, enabling a more data-driven approach to model selection and routing. By automatically syncing scored responses and comparison winners, the system can leverage evaluation data to inform which models are best suited for specific tasks, enhancing the overall intelligence of the AI DevOps framework. Highlights
Changelog
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
🔍 Code Quality Report�[0;35m[MONITOR]�[0m Code Review Monitoring Report �[0;34m[INFO]�[0m Latest Quality Status: �[0;34m[INFO]�[0m Recent monitoring activity: 📈 Current Quality Metrics
Generated on: Wed Feb 18 02:55:20 UTC 2026 Generated by AI DevOps Framework Code Review Monitoring |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request successfully integrates the response scoring helper with the pattern tracker, which will provide valuable data for model routing. It introduces automatic syncing of scores, comparison winners, and a new bulk sync command. The changes are well-documented and include corresponding tests. I've identified a few areas for improvement, mainly concerning security, maintainability, and adherence to repository rules and style guides. Specifically, I've pointed out a potential SQL injection risk (with a suggested fix adhering to best practices for sqlite3 in shell scripts), duplicated SQL logic (which should be extracted into a helper function), blanket error suppression, and a magic number that should be a constant.
🔍 Code Quality Report�[0;35m[MONITOR]�[0m Code Review Monitoring Report �[0;34m[INFO]�[0m Latest Quality Status: �[0;34m[INFO]�[0m Recent monitoring activity: 📈 Current Quality Metrics
Generated on: Wed Feb 18 03:09:31 UTC 2026 Generated by AI DevOps Framework Code Review Monitoring |
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
…d t1094.1 (t1107) All t1094 deliverables confirmed implemented: - Prompt strategy tracking → t1095 (pr:#1629) - Output quality gradient + failure categorization → t1096 (pr:#1632) - Token usage → t1095 (pr:#1629) - A/B comparison → t1098+t1099 (pr:#1637, pr:#1634) - Prompt-repeat strategy → t1097 (pr:#1631) - Build-agent reference → t1094.1 (pr:#1633) t1094 parent ready to be marked complete: verified:2026-02-18
1 participant
WIP - incremental commits
Ref #1624