Repository navigation
Improve README and add opt-in Jev workflows - #252
Coding-Dev-Tools wants to merge 68 commits into
Conversation
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: 71c099dfd8
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.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9165f7847f
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.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 3bec5bc6ed
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.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 24f0fd4973
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.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: cf6b4268ae
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.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d299855513
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.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 6ab0475f13
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.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 0f6d292beb
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.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 94b8d244bf
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.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: fd5b060adb
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.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 062bff700d
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.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: c76873dc06
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".
| PUBLIC_OFFLINE_ARTIFACT = "offline-fixtures-v128.json" | ||
| PUBLIC_OFFLINE_SHA = "73f2d1a8cd6e2db070577582a2266f6605efc052800da17db9938f7a274bf755" | ||
| PUBLIC_OFFLINE_ARTIFACT = "offline-fixtures-v149.json" | ||
| PUBLIC_OFFLINE_SHA = "d5d36c55c4303d77b161137521dd31f77f39b7a0c9e2fed3ddb63e303b12cc6d" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fresh evidence beyond the earlier v148 finding shows that the newly pinned v149 artifact itself hashes to 23b5d2bf01f2…, while this constant, its .sha256 sidecar, BENCHMARKS.md, and the generated visuals all claim d5d36c55c430…. Consequently, python -m pytest tests/ -q -x fails in test_public_numeric_evidence_registry_is_complete_and_live, blocking the required offline gate; regenerate or repin the v149 artifact and update every checksum consumer.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L50-L54
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d1bd37d783
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".
|
One historical integrity item remains on e21e321. The retained docs/benchmark-evidence/offline-fixtures-v149.json is missing its final LF. Its stored bytes hash to 23b5d2bf01f2bd6ef82f3991c908a7cc9987f13779671c948244117c71ff7caf. Adding exactly one final LF yields d5d36c55c4303d77b161137521dd31f77f39b7a0c9e2fed3ddb63e303b12cc6d, matching the existing sidecar and advertised historical identity. Please restore only that byte, preserve all JSON data, and confirm the current editing branch/HEAD checkpoint. Keep the v149 thread open until the stored checksum pair is verified. The other three findings can be closed with evidence:
All 26 CI jobs and CodeQL passed on this head. No repeated benchmark run is needed to restore the missing v149 byte. |
Integrate current main, keep managed fixed reviews independent from BYOK-only planning, validate payload bytes before credential lookup, retain opt-in compact previews, and correct selected-report labels and integration docs. Regenerate immutable source-bound evidence and shipped contracts.
|
Read-only handoff for
Please have the current editor incorporate these small fixes, run focused regressions, and refresh source-bound evidence/pins with a new immutable artifact when Python source changes. Please confirm the editing branch and HEAD checkpoint before another writer publishes. |
This branch has not been deployed
1 participant
Summary
Adds opt-in dashboard evidence review and experimental BYOK route selection, and moves detailed configuration out of the README. A remote advisory timeout, busy worker, or malformed response preserves the configured local routes within the original planner deadline. Local calls remain available while a remote worker is occupied.
Ask submissions snapshot the question, scope, classification, and consent together. Changing Jev settings invalidates pending responses and retries, so revoked consent cannot be reused. Dashboard evidence review reports whether selected evidence can answer a question; it does not certify a declarative claim's truth.
Managed and auto configurations stay local for route selection and never silently switch to BYOK. Fixed dashboard review workflows resolve their lazy managed client independently after input and consent checks. Classic, Smart, direct MCP, and raw managed custom requests still fail locally before credential refresh.
The changes also retain opt-in compact previews and reject oversized or invalid Unicode payloads before credential lookup. Benchmark labels use the selected retrieval depth and withhold packed scores when no samples were measured. Integration docs match the current local-agent trust policy and Pi installation command.
Current main is integrated, including explicit cross-agent session resume and the MCP SDK pin. Shipped schemas and skill checksums are regenerated. New immutable offline evidence binds all 585 source files; README benchmark links point to the commit containing its guide and matching SVG/PNG visuals. Historical artifacts remain preserved.
Verification
de04e64552c549e2464ce1119a12c1c57931b044. The coverage job passed 8,040 tests with 20 skips and 86.00% coverage; the complete browser job passed 194 scenarios.Managed service boundary
Managed availability remains
not_yet_availablepending private service acceptance and capacity qualification. The documented limits are per eligible individual: 100 evaluated questions per rolling hour, 1,000 per rolling five hours, and 2,000 per rolling 24 hours. Questions count individually; command review uses two. Direct BYOK can incur provider charges. The documented fleet-cap conflict must be resolved before managed activation. No held-out quality, cost-saving, activation, or deployment claim is made.