[codex] Emit structured headless review results#7
Conversation
|
@cody please review this PR again. Focus on whether the structured review-result contract actually proves which PR files were supplied and inspected, and call out any implementation issues. |
Cody dogfood resultStatus: success Cody made 1 commit across 0 files. CodyCompleted the requested change. Files changedNo files changed. Evidence
Files changed: 0 Task |
|
@cody please review this PR one more time using the updated hosted runtime. Verify the structured review result includes mode, evidence_status, reviewed_files, findings/no_findings_reason, and limitations based on this PR's changed files. |
|
@cody please review this PR again after the adapter/runtime v2 sync. Confirm whether the emitted result now includes structured review evidence for this PR's changed files. |
Cody dogfood resultStatus: success Cody made 1 commit across 0 files. CodyCompleted the requested change. Files changedNo files changed. Evidence
Files changed: 0 Task |
|
@cody please run the structured review visibility check. The result comment should now include a Structured review section with mode, evidence_status, reviewed_files, findings/no_findings_reason, tests, and limitations. |
Cody dogfood resultStatus: success Cody made 1 commit across 0 files. CodyCompleted the requested change. Files changedNo files changed. Evidence
Structured review
Files changed: 0 Task |
Signed-off-by: Timothy Wayne Gregg <Timothy.Gregg@complete.tech>
|
@cody please run the supporting-file evidence check. The visible result should show supporting_files/supporting-file count and any limitation about whether broader codebase inspection is trace-backed. |
Cody dogfood resultStatus: success Cody made 1 commit across 0 files. CodyCompleted the requested change. Files changedNo files changed. Evidence
Structured review
Files changed: 0 Task |
What changed
Adds headless contract v2 support on the
coven-codeside for issue OpenCoven#119.reviewobject toresult.jsonoutput.review_contextsupplied by the hosted GitHub adapter.mode: "none"andevidence_status: "not_applicable".Why
Dogfooding showed we could prove the adapter checked out and supplied PR files, but the runtime result contract did not preserve that evidence in a machine-readable way. This gives future runs a deterministic evidence field instead of relying only on narrative comments.
Validation
cargo test --manifest-path src-rust\Cargo.toml -p claurst headlesscargo test --manifest-path src-rust\Cargo.tomlStacked after PR #5 (
codex/hosted-review-phase-5).