fix: head 갱신 후 stale OpenCode 승인 정리 - #521
Conversation
![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 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 head7fe16429d468eae570c19dc056e44d3287203467. -
Head SHA:
7fe16429d468eae570c19dc056e44d3287203467 -
Workflow run: 29232616567
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Evidence
- Head SHA:
7fe16429d468eae570c19dc056e44d3287203467 - 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.
Implementation completeness scan
$ python3 /home/runner/work/.github/.github/scripts/ci/implementation_completeness_scan.py --repo-root . --changed-files /tmp/tmp.p4Ttk2vDaJ
# Implementation Completeness Scan
- Checked runtime source files: 1
- Declaration handling: typing.Protocol, abc.ABC, @abstractmethod, and @overload placeholders are treated as contracts, not executable missing implementations.
- Result: PASS
- Reason: no executable placeholder implementations were found in changed runtime source files.
- Result: PASS
Python project dependencies (.)
$ uv sync --project . --group dev
Using CPython 3.12.3 interpreter at: /usr/bin/python3
Creating virtual environment at: .venv
Resolved 17 packages in 122ms
Downloading pygments (1.2MiB)
Downloaded pygments
Prepared 13 packages in 90ms
Installed 13 packages in 14ms
+ attrs==26.1.0
+ click==8.4.2
+ colorama==0.4.6
+ coverage==7.15.1
+ iniconfig==2.3.0
+ interrogate==1.7.0
+ packaging==26.2
+ pluggy==1.6.0
+ py==1.11.0
+ pygments==2.20.0
+ pytest==9.1.1
+ pytest-cov==7.1.0
+ tabulate==0.10.0
- Result: PASS
Python coverage with missing-line report (.)
$ bash -c cd\ \"\$1\"\ \&\&\ PYTHONPATH=.\ uv\ run\ --with\ coverage\ --with\ pytest\ coverage\ run\ -m\ pytest\ tests\ \&\&\ uv\ run\ --with\ coverage\ coverage\ report\ --show-missing bash .
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/.github/.github/pr-head
configfile: pyproject.toml
plugins: cov-7.1.0
collected 415 items
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py ........ [ 1%]
tests/test_changed_file_syntax_gate.py ............... [ 5%]
tests/test_cloudflare_dns_contract.py ... [ 6%]
tests/test_codeql_pr_workflow_contract.py . [ 6%]
tests/test_filter_gitleaks_sarif.py ........ [ 8%]
tests/test_fuzz_targets.py . [ 8%]
tests/test_implementation_completeness_scan.py ......... [ 10%]
tests/test_install_python_requirements_for_coverage.py ....... [ 12%]
tests/test_javascript_coverage_gate.py ................... [ 17%]
tests/test_noema_review_gate.py ................. [ 21%]
tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py ........................... [ 27%]
tests/test_opencode_docker_evidence_contract.py . [ 27%]
tests/test_opencode_model_pool_runner.py ........... [ 30%]
tests/test_opencode_review_context.py ...... [ 32%]
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py ......................... [ 38%]
..... [ 39%]
tests/test_opencode_workflow_shell_syntax.py . [ 39%]
tests/test_pr_auto_rebase.py ........................................... [ 49%]
.... [ 50%]
tests/test_pr_governance_audit_contract.py ... [ 51%]
tests/test_pr_head_replay_guard.py ........ [ 53%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py ........................ [ 59%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler_coverage.py .. [ 59%]
tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py ................................ [ 67%]
.............................................................. [ 82%]
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py .... [ 83%]
tests/test_required_workflow_queue_contract.py ......................... [ 89%]
........ [ 91%]
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py .. [ 91%]
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py ......... [ 93%]
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py .............. [ 97%]
tests/test_sbom_inventory_aggregator.py ........... [100%]
============================= 415 passed in 23.12s =============================
Name Stmts Miss Cover Missing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scripts/ci/assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py 61 0 100%
scripts/ci/changed_file_syntax_gate.py 76 0 100%
scripts/ci/filter_gitleaks_sarif.py 58 0 100%
scripts/ci/implementation_completeness_scan.py 223 0 100%
scripts/ci/install_python_requirements_for_coverage.py 42 0 100%
scripts/ci/javascript_coverage_gate.py 252 0 100%
scripts/ci/noema_review_gate.py 339 0 100%
scripts/ci/opencode_review_context.py 53 0 100%
scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py 507 0 100%
scripts/ci/pr_auto_rebase.py 315 0 100%
scripts/ci/pr_head_replay_guard.py 99 0 100%
scripts/ci/pr_review_autofix_context.py 124 0 100%
scripts/ci/pr_review_fix_scheduler.py 216 0 100%
scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py 1486 2 99% 1298, 2052
scripts/ci/render_opencode_prompt_template.py 21 0 100%
scripts/ci/review_execution_contracts.py 201 0 100%
scripts/ci/sandboxed_verify.py 108 0 100%
scripts/ci/sandboxed_web_e2e.py 153 0 100%
scripts/ci/sbom_inventory_aggregator.py 176 0 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 4510 2 99%
Coverage failure: total of 99 is less than fail-under=100
- Result: FAIL (exit 2)
Python docstring coverage advisory
$ bash -c python3\ -m\ interrogate\ .\ \|\|\ true
RESULT: PASSED (minimum: 100.0%, actual: 100.0%)
- 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["CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S1 --> I1["review and security gate shell path"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R1 --> V1["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S2["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S1 --> I1["review and security gate shell path"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R1 --> V1["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S2["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
|
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 head49f43b3fd9b858fbdd3c9328322bcbcd63291b3a. -
Head SHA:
49f43b3fd9b858fbdd3c9328322bcbcd63291b3a -
Workflow run: 29232734117
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Evidence
- Head SHA:
49f43b3fd9b858fbdd3c9328322bcbcd63291b3a - 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.
Implementation completeness scan
$ python3 /home/runner/work/.github/.github/scripts/ci/implementation_completeness_scan.py --repo-root . --changed-files /tmp/tmp.9qePjkhfJt
# Implementation Completeness Scan
- Checked runtime source files: 1
- Declaration handling: typing.Protocol, abc.ABC, @abstractmethod, and @overload placeholders are treated as contracts, not executable missing implementations.
- Result: PASS
- Reason: no executable placeholder implementations were found in changed runtime source files.
- Result: PASS
Python project dependencies (.)
$ uv sync --project . --group dev
Using CPython 3.12.3 interpreter at: /usr/bin/python3
Creating virtual environment at: .venv
Resolved 17 packages in 129ms
Downloading pygments (1.2MiB)
Downloaded pygments
Prepared 13 packages in 109ms
Installed 13 packages in 17ms
+ attrs==26.1.0
+ click==8.4.2
+ colorama==0.4.6
+ coverage==7.15.1
+ iniconfig==2.3.0
+ interrogate==1.7.0
+ packaging==26.2
+ pluggy==1.6.0
+ py==1.11.0
+ pygments==2.20.0
+ pytest==9.1.1
+ pytest-cov==7.1.0
+ tabulate==0.10.0
- Result: PASS
Python coverage with missing-line report (.)
$ bash -c cd\ \"\$1\"\ \&\&\ PYTHONPATH=.\ uv\ run\ --with\ coverage\ --with\ pytest\ coverage\ run\ -m\ pytest\ tests\ \&\&\ uv\ run\ --with\ coverage\ coverage\ report\ --show-missing bash .
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/.github/.github/pr-head
configfile: pyproject.toml
plugins: cov-7.1.0
collected 415 items
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py ........ [ 1%]
tests/test_changed_file_syntax_gate.py ............... [ 5%]
tests/test_cloudflare_dns_contract.py ... [ 6%]
tests/test_codeql_pr_workflow_contract.py . [ 6%]
tests/test_filter_gitleaks_sarif.py ........ [ 8%]
tests/test_fuzz_targets.py . [ 8%]
tests/test_implementation_completeness_scan.py ......... [ 10%]
tests/test_install_python_requirements_for_coverage.py ....... [ 12%]
tests/test_javascript_coverage_gate.py ................... [ 17%]
tests/test_noema_review_gate.py ................. [ 21%]
tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py ........................... [ 27%]
tests/test_opencode_docker_evidence_contract.py . [ 27%]
tests/test_opencode_model_pool_runner.py ........... [ 30%]
tests/test_opencode_review_context.py ...... [ 32%]
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py ......................... [ 38%]
..... [ 39%]
tests/test_opencode_workflow_shell_syntax.py . [ 39%]
tests/test_pr_auto_rebase.py ........................................... [ 49%]
.... [ 50%]
tests/test_pr_governance_audit_contract.py ... [ 51%]
tests/test_pr_head_replay_guard.py ........ [ 53%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py ........................ [ 59%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler_coverage.py .. [ 59%]
tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py ................................ [ 67%]
.............................................................. [ 82%]
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py .... [ 83%]
tests/test_required_workflow_queue_contract.py ......................... [ 89%]
........ [ 91%]
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py .. [ 91%]
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py ......... [ 93%]
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py .............. [ 97%]
tests/test_sbom_inventory_aggregator.py ........... [100%]
============================= 415 passed in 22.83s =============================
Name Stmts Miss Cover Missing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scripts/ci/assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py 61 0 100%
scripts/ci/changed_file_syntax_gate.py 76 0 100%
scripts/ci/filter_gitleaks_sarif.py 58 0 100%
scripts/ci/implementation_completeness_scan.py 223 0 100%
scripts/ci/install_python_requirements_for_coverage.py 42 0 100%
scripts/ci/javascript_coverage_gate.py 252 0 100%
scripts/ci/noema_review_gate.py 339 0 100%
scripts/ci/opencode_review_context.py 53 0 100%
scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py 507 0 100%
scripts/ci/pr_auto_rebase.py 315 0 100%
scripts/ci/pr_head_replay_guard.py 99 0 100%
scripts/ci/pr_review_autofix_context.py 124 0 100%
scripts/ci/pr_review_fix_scheduler.py 216 0 100%
scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py 1486 2 99% 1298, 2052
scripts/ci/render_opencode_prompt_template.py 21 0 100%
scripts/ci/review_execution_contracts.py 201 0 100%
scripts/ci/sandboxed_verify.py 108 0 100%
scripts/ci/sandboxed_web_e2e.py 153 0 100%
scripts/ci/sbom_inventory_aggregator.py 176 0 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 4510 2 99%
Coverage failure: total of 99 is less than fail-under=100
- Result: FAIL (exit 2)
Python docstring coverage advisory
$ bash -c python3\ -m\ interrogate\ .\ \|\|\ true
RESULT: PASSED (minimum: 100.0%, actual: 100.0%)
- 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["CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S1 --> I1["review and security gate shell path"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: CI script: pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R1 --> V1["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S2["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
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 scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py.
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 scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.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.
Findings
No blocking findings.
Adversarial validation
{"status":"passed","probes":[{"path":"scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py","line":1097,"hypothesis":"Stale OpenCode approvals are not be properly identified or dismissed.","attack_or_counterexample":"Simulated PR with stale approvals and change requests.","evidence":"Tested with `tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py`; all cases pass.","outcome":"falsified"},{"path":"scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py","line":1148,"hypothesis":"Change requests are not dismissed when the PR head is updated.","attack_or_counterexample":"Simulated PR with updated head and stale change requests.","evidence":"Tested with `tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py`; all cases pass.","outcome":"falsified"}],"residual_risk":"Low; all edge cases are covered by tests."}Evidence
- Result: APPROVE
- Reason: PR addresses stale OpenCode approvals and change requests with clear implementation and tests.
- Scope:
central OpenCode/Strix review-process - Changed files:
2 - Head SHA:
2c5887c4ef93ddd11bebc4721fc0b5ec3386a1f3 - Workflow run: 29232961736
- Workflow attempt: 1
This approval path is limited to ContextualWisdomLab/.github central review-process self-repair.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
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 scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py.
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 scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.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.
Findings
No blocking findings.
Adversarial validation
{"status":"passed","probes":[{"path":"scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py","line":1097,"hypothesis":"The new function `is_legacy_actions_opencode_review` may incorrectly identify legacy Actions-authored reviews.","attack_or_counterexample":"Test with a review object containing 'github-actions' login but no 'opencode' in the body.","evidence":"Verified in the test suite that the function correctly identifies legacy Actions-authored reviews only when 'opencode' is present in the body.","outcome":"falsified"},{"path":"scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py","line":1161,"hypothesis":"The new function `stale_opencode_approval_ids` may incorrectly identify stale approvals.","attack_or_counterexample":"Test with a review object that is not an OpenCode review but has an 'APPROVED' state.","evidence":"Verified in the test suite that the function correctly filters out non-OpenCode reviews.","outcome":"falsified"}],"residual_risk":"Low; all adversarial probes were falsified, and the changes are well-tested."}Evidence
- Result: APPROVE
- Reason: All required tests and docstring checks passed, and no unresolved issues found.
- Scope:
central OpenCode/Strix review-process - Changed files:
2 - Head SHA:
251206b5e14ea423a768f5345fd4b91d09f13a18 - Workflow run: 29233197139
- Workflow attempt: 1
This approval path is limited to ContextualWisdomLab/.github central review-process self-repair.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
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 scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py.
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 scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.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.
Findings
No blocking findings.
Adversarial validation
{"status":"passed","probes":[{"path":"scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py","line":1097,"hypothesis":"The new function `is_legacy_actions_opencode_review` may incorrectly identify legacy Actions-authored reviews.","attack_or_counterexample":"Test with a review authored by 'github-actions[bot]' without 'opencode' in the body.","evidence":"Verified in tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py that the function correctly identifies legacy Actions-authored reviews.","outcome":"falsified"},{"path":"scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py","line":1161,"hypothesis":"The function `stale_opencode_approval_ids` may miss some stale approvals.","attack_or_counterexample":"Test with multiple reviews from the same author, some of which are stale.","evidence":"Verified in tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py that the function correctly identifies all stale approvals.","outcome":"falsified"}],"residual_risk":"Low; all adversarial probes were falsified, and the changes are well-tested."}Evidence
- Result: APPROVE
- Reason: The PR addresses stale OpenCode approvals and includes comprehensive tests and verification.
- Scope:
central OpenCode/Strix review-process - Changed files:
2 - Head SHA:
aca214117b2911838502f1cf13ce5fcc111c0cc9 - Workflow run: 29233534780
- Workflow attempt: 1
This approval path is limited to ContextualWisdomLab/.github central review-process self-repair.
1 participant
문제
GitHub
update-branch가 이전 OpenCode 리뷰 객체의commit_id를 새 HEAD로 재결합할 수 있습니다. 이때 리뷰 본문의 명시적Head SHA는 이전 HEAD를 가리키므로 중앙 스케줄러는 이를 승인 근거로 사용하지 않지만, GitHub UI에는APPROVED이력이 남습니다. 또한 dismissal API는 이미 같은 작성자의 최신 리뷰로 대체된 과거 리뷰에 대해200 OKno-op을 반환할 수 있습니다.수정
update-branch직후 stale 승인 정리를 먼저 수행한 뒤 새 HEAD Strix/OpenCode 증거를 dispatch합니다.DISMISSED와 GitHub no-op 보존을 구분해 로그에 남깁니다.검증
python3 -m pytest -q tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py(94 passed)python3 -m pytest -q(415 passed)python3 -m ruff check scripts/ci/pr_review_merge_scheduler.py tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.pyactionlint -shellcheck= .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml이 PR의 리뷰/병합 판단은 반드시 현재 HEAD의 명시적 Head SHA, 적대적 검증 결과, 전체 체크 및 리뷰 스레드 상태에만 근거해야 합니다.