Repository navigation
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reachedYour organization has reached its usage spending cap. Adjust your spending cap in the billing tab. Next included review available in 29 minutes. View limit detailsLimit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. Your 101 included PR review attempts over the past 7 days set your current allowance at 1 review per hour. Review configuration: ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository: stranske/Workflows/.coderabbit.yaml Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Essentials Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (8)
Comment |
Automated Status SummaryHead SHA: dcd4647
Coverage Overview
Coverage Trend
Top Coverage Hotspots (lowest coverage)
Low Coverage Files (<50.0%)
Updated automatically; will refresh on subsequent CI/Docker completions. Keepalive checklistScopeScope section missing from source issue. Context for AgentRelated Issues/PRsTasks
Acceptance criteria
|
b97d424 to
a4140d0
Compare
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a4140d082f
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot review overview
🟡 Changes recommended
The generated candidate registry remains stale and will fail its enforced drift test.
Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 1
Open (1)
What changed in this PR
Proposes GPT-6 Luna as the provisional OpenAI verifier based on paired MAINT-78 evidence.
Changes:
- Switches the verifier selection from Terra to Luna.
- Adds monitoring-oriented planning output and tests.
- Synchronizes registry and policy documentation.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
tools/plan_model_eval.py |
Reports provisional evidence and monitoring actions. |
tests/tools/test_maint78_cost_quality.py |
Updates plan expectations for Luna. |
config/model_registry.json |
Selects Luna and records evidence/history. |
templates/consumer-repo/config/model_registry.json |
Mirrors the registry for consumers. |
docs/MODEL_SELECTION_POLICY.md |
Documents evidence and rollback criteria. |
docs/ops/ASTRA_ROLLOUT.md |
Updates the auxiliary verifier selection. |
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
stranske
added
agents:keepalive
🤖 Keepalive Loop StatusPR #3689 | Agent: Codex | Iteration 0/12 Current State
Agent Delegation (auto mode)
Last Codex Run
To retry:
🔍 Failure Classification| Error type | infrastructure | |
Keepalive Work Log (click to expand)
|
🤖 Keepalive Loop StatusPR #3689 | Agent: Codex | Iteration 0/12 Current State
Agent Delegation (auto mode)
Last Codex Run
To retry:
🔍 Failure Classification| Error type | infrastructure | |
|
Source-sync canary reviews found a policy conflict on this same file: the synced header says next decision review 2026-10-31 while config/model_registry.json still has overdue 2026-08-30 global, OpenAI, and GitHub decision deadlines. Issue #3695 now owns a bounded compatibility/documentation repair plus the publisher-prefixed reasoning-model guard; please coordinate its policy edit with this PR and do not silently advance review_by without decision evidence. This PR currently changes docs/MODEL_SELECTION_POLICY.md and both registry copies, so rebase/review against any #3695 source fix before merging. Reviewer evidence: stranske/Portable-Alpha-Extension-Model#2328 (comment). |
HOLD: complexity evidence does not justify a global switch
Keep this PR draft and unmerged. The original eight-case comparison covered six distinct PRs: four one-file evidence documents, one two-file 17-line fix, and one three-file 158-line integration change. The production verifier caps context at 8,000 characters; that integration case was truncated.
A zero-API-call complexity capture reconstructed production-style inputs for three larger previously verified PRs: Workflows #3601 (30 files, 172,022 context characters), Manager-Database #1703 (11 files, 80,174), and Pension-Data #912 (9 files, 30,861). All exceed the prompt cap, so much of their code is absent from the actual model input. A fourth candidate had no usable verifier acceptance context and was excluded. On a subscription-only Terra/Luna pair for Manager-Database #1703, both models returned CONCERNS citing missing acceptance evidence and truncated code, while the source issue records a durable earlier OpenAI PASS and no substantive follow-up debt. This shows a prompt-coverage limitation, not a quality win for either model. No further API confirmation was run.
Resolve prompt coverage issue #3701 and source-evidence issue #3700, then evaluate representative complex PASS and NON_PASS cases before reviving the global selection proposal. The earlier 8/8 result remains valid for its narrow cases.
Proposed provisional change, if the hold clears
Select
gpt-6-lunafor the OpenAIverifier-balancedregistry profile, retain Terra in selection history for rollback, and review the first ten live verifier outcomes or by October 9. Merging the selection PR would be the human approval required byconfig/model_selection_policy.json; do not merge it while this hold remains.The original subscription screen and 16-call capped API confirmation found both models 8/8 correct on four PASS and four NON_PASS inputs, with zero false PASS or schema errors. The six natural captures were retrospective and two NON_PASS inputs were controlled defects. Measured-token cost estimates were $0.000561 per accepted review for Luna versus $0.011036 for Terra; total modeled cost was $0.092777, not an invoice charge. These facts support a narrow provisional comparison, not population quality or complex-PR coverage.
Verification
The selection branch's exact-head Gate passed all 56 checks before this complexity finding. The draft hold is an evidence limitation, not a CI failure. The Terra API compatibility fix is merged in #3688. Consumer runtime changes would require Maint 68/71 sync delivery after any future approved selection.