⚡ Bolt: p-value 최소값 탐색 최적화 - #188

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: adcd1562c6fe0adb30e6689e8ce23db6bfbb36f9
• Workflow run: 30486679059
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head adcd1562c6fe0adb30e6689e8ce23db6bfbb36f9.

• Head SHA: adcd1562c6fe0adb30e6689e8ce23db6bfbb36f9

• Workflow run: 30486679059

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

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["Changed file (6 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (6 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Closing as superseded by #178, which now carries the same O(N) minimum-selection change with deterministic semantic-equivalence and domain-valid recovery tests in a bounded four-file diff. This branch includes unrelated journal, lint, Semgrep, and root-script drift, so those concerns should be proposed separately rather than competing with the canonical exact-head review.