Skip to content

fix(ci): restore executable hourly governance - #36

Open
seonghobae wants to merge 13 commits into
mainfrom
fix/hourly-loop-reachable-governance
Open

fix(ci): restore executable hourly governance#36
seonghobae wants to merge 13 commits into
mainfrom
fix/hourly-loop-reachable-governance

Conversation

@seonghobae

@seonghobae seonghobae commented Aug 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Incident

Every recent scheduled Hourly RankWeave Commercialization Loop run failed before GitHub created any jobs. The caller pinned review repair to central commit 21397126d708d2d536ccc1d68b0d333653ce9315, which is no longer reachable from the protected central history.

Change

  • preserve both immutable reachable central merge/revalidation calls;
  • replace the unresolved review-repair call with a local read-only hold job;
  • keep repair fail-closed while the protected central NVIDIA NIM/OpenCode scheduler is pending;
  • do not fall back to GitHub Models, mutable central code, COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN, inherited repair secrets, or an unmerged central branch;
  • retain the hourly schedule and existing NVIDIA NIM product-development stage;
  • add permanent workflow contracts, operations documentation, incident doctoring, ADR 0006, and CHANGELOG evidence.

Security and modularity

The bridge has only contents: read and pull-requests: read. It does not invoke a model, request OIDC, mutate a PR, or duplicate the central repair engine. Existing independent review agents and their credential system remain unchanged. Re-enabling automated repair requires a new reachable immutable SHA for the protected central NVIDIA scheduler.

Verification evidence

A test-first one-shot workflow produced and verified the exact durable tree before the workflow file was applied through the repository Git data API:

  • 17 focused hourly-workflow contracts passed;
  • 662 full tests passed;
  • production coverage: 1,611/1,611 statements and 446/446 branches, 100%;
  • Ruff and compileall passed;
  • wheel and source distribution built successfully as RankWeave 0.18.0;
  • temporary patch scripts, bootstrap workflow, and neutral staging copy are absent from the final diff.

Current exact head: a05fe5a748a4094812a7382778f4160aa539ca36.

Merge only after this head's Python 3.10-3.13 CI, package smoke, Security Scan, SAST Semgrep, current-head review, combined status, and zero unresolved actionable threads succeed.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

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

Next review available in: 5 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

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: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 94915aac-0a9f-42ca-b77b-59a20b4e0639

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 61c49c5 and d660011.

📒 Files selected for processing (7)
  • .github/workflows/hourly-commercialization-loop.yml
  • CHANGELOG.md
  • docs/adr/0006-fail-closed-hourly-repair-bridge.md
  • docs/doctoring/hourly-reusable-workflow-reachability.md
  • docs/operations/hourly-commercialization-loop.md
  • tests/test_hourly_commercialization_workflow.py
  • tests/test_hourly_secret_boundaries.py

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

Comment thread .github/workflows/apply-hourly-loop-repair.yml Fixed
@seonghobae
seonghobae marked this pull request as ready for review August 6, 2026 23:58
@seonghobae
seonghobae enabled auto-merge (squash) August 6, 2026 23:59

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 a05fe5a748a4094812a7382778f4160aa539ca36.

  • Head SHA: a05fe5a748a4094812a7382778f4160aa539ca36

  • Workflow run: 31134428042

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: hourly-commercialization-loop.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: hourly-commercialization-loop.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
  S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
  R2 --> V2["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Docs (3 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (3 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S4["Test: test_hourly_commercialization_workflow.py"]
  S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test: test_hourly_commercialization_workflow.py"]
  R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent

opencode-agent Bot commented Aug 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: d6600113abeed42a7a782053f4837b1bedd9701b
  • Workflow run: 31300875609
  • 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 d6600113abeed42a7a782053f4837b1bedd9701b.

  • Head SHA: d6600113abeed42a7a782053f4837b1bedd9701b

  • Workflow run: 31300875609

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: hourly-commercialization-loop.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: hourly-commercialization-loop.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
  S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
  R2 --> V2["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Docs (3 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (3 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S4["Test (2 files)"]
  S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
  R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent
opencode-agent Bot disabled auto-merge August 7, 2026 03:22

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 a05fe5a748a4094812a7382778f4160aa539ca36.

  • Head SHA: a05fe5a748a4094812a7382778f4160aa539ca36

  • Workflow run: 31134428042

  • Workflow attempt: 2

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: hourly-commercialization-loop.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: hourly-commercialization-loop.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
  S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
  R2 --> V2["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Docs (3 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (3 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S4["Test: test_hourly_commercialization_workflow.py"]
  S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test: test_hourly_commercialization_workflow.py"]
  R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 05f33e33ffc5cd39ce001c5992aaceb3a5f18ddd.

  • Head SHA: 05f33e33ffc5cd39ce001c5992aaceb3a5f18ddd

  • Workflow run: 31291643399

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: hourly-commercialization-loop.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: hourly-commercialization-loop.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
  S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
  R2 --> V2["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Docs (3 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (3 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S4["Test (2 files)"]
  S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
  R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 d6600113abeed42a7a782053f4837b1bedd9701b.

  • Head SHA: d6600113abeed42a7a782053f4837b1bedd9701b

  • Workflow run: 31300875609

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: hourly-commercialization-loop.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: hourly-commercialization-loop.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
  S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
  R2 --> V2["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Docs (3 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (3 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S4["Test (2 files)"]
  S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
  R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
Loading

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants