kaizen: CLI プローブドライバーに package-entry スモークテストを追加しました。 (#206)

[s-hiraoku]

Closes #206

元Issue

#206: [scout] Cover CLI probe driver package entry

Summary

Add package-entry coverage for the CLI probe driver so verifier's repo-local package gate exercises both bundled probe driver packages documented by the README.

Target repository and affected paths

• Target repository: kaizen-agents-org/verifier
• Affected paths or components:
  • packages/probe-drivers/cli/package.json
  • packages/probe-drivers/cli/test/
    …

Builder task understanding

CLI プローブドライバーに package-entry スモークテストを追加しました。
ルートゲートから API/CLI 両パッケージを検証するよう更新しました。

Builder notes

指定された全検証に成功しました。保護対象パスとドキュメントは変更せず、変更は未コミットです。

Provider evidence:

• codex: exitCode=0, status=selected, failureClass=none, fallbackReason=none, payloadSource=last-message, truncatedOutput=none
  Selected backend: codex
  Final payload source: last-message

変更ファイル

• fixtures/metrics.json — CLI プローブドライバーに package-entry スモークテストを追加しました。
  ルートゲートから API/CLI 両パッケージを検証するよう更新しました。
• package.json — CLI プローブドライバーに package-entry スモークテストを追加しました。
  ルートゲートから API/CLI 両パッケージを検証するよう更新しました。
• packages/probe-drivers/cli/package.json — CLI プローブドライバーに package-entry スモークテストを追加しました。
  ルートゲートから API/CLI 両パッケージを検証するよう更新しました。
• packages/probe-drivers/cli/test/package-entry.test.mjs — CLI プローブドライバーに package-entry スモークテストを追加しました。
  ルートゲートから API/CLI 両パッケージを検証するよう更新しました。

Changed files: 4 / Changed lines: 22

Verification

• pnpm typecheck — 成功
• pnpm test:package-entry — 成功
• pnpm test — 成功
• pnpm schema:check — 成功
• pnpm eval — 成功
• SEMANTIC_EVAL_WRITE_METRICS=false pnpm eval:semantic:ci — 成功
• test -f skills/gh-link-issue-pr/SKILL.md && test -f skills/kaizen-bug-router/SKILL.md && test -f skills/pr-guardian/SKILL.md — 成功

Verifier verdict

verifier: open_pr_with_warning
summary: Open PR with warning and 9 should_fix item(s); risk is medium.
evidence: reported (未実行の可能性あり)
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: packages/probe-drivers/api test:package-entry: ℹ skipped 0
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: packages/probe-drivers/api test:package-entry: ℹ todo 0
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: packages/probe-drivers/cli test:package-entry: ℹ skipped 0
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: packages/probe-drivers/cli test:package-entry: ℹ todo 0
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: "risk": "medium",
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: "risk": "low",
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: "id": "gp-008-eslint-warning-summary",
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: "labelSource": "Curated verifier MVP corpus case gp-008-eslint-warning-summary.json",
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: "description": "Golden warning control: eslint warning-only summaries should warn without blocking.",
confidence: 48/100
risk: medium
notes: evidence_grade=reported
warning: この判定は実行証拠ではなくテキスト報告に基づくため、未実行の可能性があります。

Evidence strength

• reported: builder summary and builder notes come from the builder-agent self-report.
• executed: Kaizen Loop ran the verification commands listed above.
• reported: Kaizen Loop ran verifier, but verifier evidence is based on text reporting rather than execution proof.
• static: changed file and line counts come from git diff metadata.

残存リスク / レビュー観点

Verifier cleared PR with warning: Open PR with warning and 9 should_fix item(s); risk is medium.
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: packages/probe-drivers/api test:package-entry: ℹ skipped 0
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: packages/probe-drivers/api test:package-entry: ℹ todo 0
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: packages/probe-drivers/cli test:package-entry: ℹ skipped 0
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: packages/probe-drivers/cli test:package-entry: ℹ todo 0
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: "risk": "medium",
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: "risk": "low",
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: "id": "gp-008-eslint-warning-summary",
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: "labelSource": "Curated verifier MVP corpus case gp-008-eslint-warning-summary.json",
should_fix: [verify_logs] Verification output contains a non-blocking risk signal. — evidence: "description": "Golden warning control: eslint warning-only summaries should warn without blocking.",
confidence: 48/100
risk: medium

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@s-hiraoku, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 29 minutes

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository: kaizen-agents-org/coderabbit/.coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 1fe625f7-f15f-4ad9-9b0f-ba657e50b1c2

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1d1713c and 792b2ca.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• fixtures/metrics.json
• package.json
• packages/probe-drivers/cli/package.json
• packages/probe-drivers/cli/test/package-entry.test.mjs

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 99a36984bb

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".

[s-hiraoku]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: b75e55d840

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".

[s-hiraoku]

PR Guardian pass 1/5 — blocked for next pinned pass\n\n- Final observed state: open, non-draft, mergeable=MERGEABLE, mergeStateStatus=BLOCKED.\n- Required checks: test passed on b75e55d; CodeRabbit status passed but its current-head review was skipped due the documented rate limit.\n- Workflow runs watched with gh run watch --exit-status: CI 31076520612 (initial head, passed) and CI 31076973657 (current head, passed).\n- Fix pushed: b75e55d retargets the CLI package-entry smoke test to import @verifier/probe-driver-cli, check its own dist/index.d.ts, and exercise the exported CliProbeDriver.\n- Feedback addressed: replied to and resolved #208 (comment) after the focused fix and full validation.\n- Validation: targeted SDK/CLI builds and CLI package-entry test; pnpm typecheck; pnpm test:package-entry; pnpm test; pnpm schema:check; pnpm eval; SEMANTIC_EVAL_WRITE_METRICS=false pnpm eval:semantic:ci.\n- Check annotation disposition: the Node 20 action-runtime deprecation warning is non-required and unrelated to this patch.\n- Remaining blocker: current-head Codex review found #208 (comment). The clean-checkout documented sequence does not build the CLI dist before the self-entry smoke test. The finding is confirmed and remains unresolved.\n- Push safety blocker: this isolated pass recorded initial HEAD 99a3698; GitHub now points to b75e55d after this pass first guarded push. Per the immutable-head requirement, this pass must stop without another push. A subsequent Guardian pass pinned to b75e55d should add the focused build-before-package-entry fix, reply, resolve, and re-run CI/review stabilization.\n- Stabilization: not completed; the new actionable Codex thread reset the window.\n\nNo merge was attempted.

[s-hiraoku]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. What shall we delve into next?

Reviewed commit: 792b2ca034

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".

[s-hiraoku]

PR Guardian pass 2/5 — mergeable

• Final mergeability: open, non-draft, mergeable=MERGEABLE, mergeStateStatus=CLEAN on 792b2ca0340f1cbd3eba6651abac9f9a3e6c01cc.
• Required checks: test passed; CodeRabbit status passed with its documented review-rate-limit disposition. Branch protection requires test and conversation resolution, not human approval.
• Workflow watched with gh run watch --exit-status: CI run 31077892386, passed all steps in 1m11s.
• Fix pushed: 792b2ca adds the CLI package pretest:package-entry build hook so its self-entry smoke test works after the documented clean-checkout pnpm typecheck sequence.
• Feedback addressed: replied to and resolved kaizen: CLI プローブドライバーに package-entry スモークテストを追加しました。 (#206) #208 (comment) with the focused fix and validation evidence.
• Validation: clean-sequence pnpm typecheck then pnpm test:package-entry with CLI dist initially absent; pnpm test; pnpm schema:check; pnpm eval; SEMANTIC_EVAL_WRITE_METRICS=false pnpm eval:semantic:ci.
• Current-head automated review: Codex reported no major issues for reviewed commit 792b2ca034 in kaizen: CLI プローブドライバーに package-entry スモークテストを追加しました。 (#206) #208 (comment). The bot emitted this clean result as a top-level comment rather than a REST review object; paginated REST reviews were also audited.
• Feedback audit: paginated GraphQL review threads, nested comments, REST reviews, review comments, PR comments, check runs, and annotations were exhausted. Both review threads are resolved; no actionable PR comments remain.
• Skipped/non-blocking item: the CI annotation about GitHub actions using the deprecated Node 20 action runtime is repository-wide, non-required, and unrelated to this patch.
• Stabilization: two passing full snapshots completed more than 30 seconds apart with the same head and no new feedback activity.
• Remaining blockers: none.

No merge was attempted.