docs: record installed review.repository qualification as unmet, not retry-confirmed - #226
Conversation
…retry-confirmed The prior wording (PR #225) still treated a later, separately-issued request's success as "the qualification evidence recorded" for the Claude/Grok hosts whose first review.repository attempt timed out with zero output under concurrent load. Per the runtime's own no-replay contract, a distinct qualification is authorized only after a verified correction, which was never performed for these two ambiguous timeouts. Record installed review.repository as explicitly unmet for those two hosts this cycle, matching the established unmet-qualification pattern used elsewhere in this handbook. The separately-run, explicitly-targeted Claude context.documents.intent canary is unaffected and stays recorded as its own clean evidence. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Important
This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars. ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Advanced Run ID: 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 |
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: 70cc08b8dc
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".
| | All 184 released files match all four primary host installations (Claude, Codex, Antigravity/Agy and Grok). Source `marketplace-fragment.json` also remains unchanged at its exact release-tag Git blob. | verified installed file contents | Installed source-manager marketplace metadata matches the exact release source. Agy-generated host metadata (`plugin.json`) is separately identified. Installed filesystem modes follow the documented client checks; no literal identical-tree claim is made for host-added files. | | ||
| | Provider-free planning passed from all four installed roots. The provider-free packaged Grok qualifier returned `qualified` with zero model calls. | verified package readiness and mechanical qualification | These checks do not prove authentication, inference or provider service availability. | | ||
| | Before publication, the full staged qualification matrix (12 actions, 5 carriers, maximum effort) returned `qualified: true` with every case content-correct and cleaned up, including a genuine live Claude `context.documents.intent` canary. After install, one qualified consumed native canary per host returned content-correct results. | bounded native execution verified for the named cases | Two of the four installed canaries' first attempts, run under concurrent host load, timed out with zero output; neither attempt's provider-dispatch status is known, and neither is counted as qualified or failed. A second, later, isolated request for each returned content-correct results with confirmed cleanup; that second request is the qualification evidence recorded, not a resolution of the first attempt's ambiguity. A separately-run, explicitly-targeted installed Claude `context.documents.intent` canary also succeeded. Successful staged evidence is not a substitute for the installed canary. | | ||
| | Before publication, the full staged qualification matrix (12 actions, 5 carriers, maximum effort) returned `qualified: true` with every case content-correct and cleaned up, including a genuine live Claude `context.documents.intent` canary. After install, Codex and Antigravity each returned one qualified `review.repository` canary. | bounded native execution verified for the named cases | Claude's and Grok's `review.repository` first attempts, run under concurrent host load, timed out with zero output; neither attempt's provider-dispatch status is known. Per the runtime's no-replay contract, a distinct qualification is authorized only after a verified correction (not performed here), so a later request cannot resolve that ambiguity or count as qualification evidence -- installed `review.repository` is recorded as unmet for those two hosts this cycle. A separately-run, explicitly-targeted installed Claude `context.documents.intent` canary -- a distinct, unambiguous first attempt -- succeeded. Successful staged evidence is not a substitute for the installed canary. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This correction now says the later Claude/Grok requests cannot count as qualification evidence, but changelog.d/2026-09-24-v708-closeout-correction.md:3 still says those isolated requests are recorded as qualification evidence. When the pending fragments are compiled, the public changelog will therefore contradict this status snapshot and preserve the exact claim this commit is meant to retract; update or supersede that fragment as part of this correction.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L44-L49
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
docs/architecture/status-and-evidence.md(line 42), which stillcarried the prior, less-precise framing from PR docs: correct v7.0.8 closeout retry-honesty and add real installed Claude evidence #225: it treated a later,
separately-issued request's success as "the qualification evidence
recorded" for the two installed
review.repositorycanaries (Claude, Grok)whose first attempt timed out with zero output under concurrent host load.
authorized only after a verified correction — never performed for these
two ambiguous timeouts (no diagnosis of why the timeout occurred before
the next request was sent). Recording that later request's success as any
form of qualification evidence, even while calling the first attempt
"uncertain", is itself improper.
review.repositoryas explicitlyunmet for the Claude and Grok hosts this cycle — matching this
handbook's own established unmet-qualification pattern (see the 7.0.7
cycle's "installed Gemini qualification remains unmet"). The separately-run,
explicitly-targeted Claude
context.documents.intentcanary is unaffected(a distinct, clean, unambiguous first attempt) and remains recorded as its
own evidence.
docs/release-closeout-7.0.8.mdand the learning-ledger entryLRN-20260924-022110-claude-daa9; this PR brings the public repository'salready-merged docs: record 7.0.8 publication and per-host installed checks #224/docs: correct v7.0.8 closeout retry-honesty and add real installed Claude evidence #225 content into the same, more conservative,
precedent-matching state.
No version, packaging, or behavior change. Documentation prose only.
Test plan
python3 scripts/check_release_consistency.py— PASSpython3 scripts/check-public-export-safety.py --active-tree— SAFEpython3 scripts/secret_scan.py— cleangit diff --check— cleanauthor: claude
standing_directives: docs/public-governance.md; Batch PR review remediation (operator-set 2026-08-13)
tier: 1
cross_check: N/A -- Tier 1 pure documentation-prose correction, no executable/policy/security/packaging/release effect
post_condition: record this PR's merge commit in the workspace release-closeout companion doc, then finish workspace PR #3190
mcp_coverage_gap: NONE
contributor_rights: OWNER-AUTHORED
operator_reserved: no
🤖 Generated with Claude Code