🧪 테스트 커버리지 개선: parse_workflow_action_required_reason 함수에 대한 테스트 추가

[seonghobae]

🎯 무엇을:parse_workflow_action_required_reason 함수에 대한 테스트가 누락되어 있어서 이를 보완했습니다.
📊 커버리지:

• marker 문자열이 제대로 포함되어 check 이름들을 추출할 수 있는 경우
• marker 문자열이 아예 없는 경우
• marker 뒤에 공백만 있고 추가 check 내용이 없는 경우
  모든 경로를 커버하여 tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py 에 테스트를 추가했습니다.
  ✨ 결과: 해당 함수에 대한 커버리지가 100% 달성되었으며, interrogate 및 CI 명령어의 통과를 확인했습니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 17280623075126670709 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[seonghobae]

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request

[github-actions]

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 1acfa930b246ba444f14dbd2b6467134e1211975.

• Head SHA: 1acfa930b246ba444f14dbd2b6467134e1211975

• Workflow run: 28513537559

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Evidence

• Head SHA: 1acfa930b246ba444f14dbd2b6467134e1211975
• Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
• Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.

Python project dependencies (.)

Using CPython 3.12.3 interpreter at: /usr/bin/python
Creating virtual environment at: .venv
warning: No `requires-python` value found in the workspace. Defaulting to `>=3.12`.
Resolved in 1ms
Checked in 0.00ms

• Result: PASS

Python coverage with missing-line report (.)

warning: No `requires-python` value found in the workspace. Defaulting to `>=3.12`.
Downloading pygments (1.2MiB)
Downloaded pygments
Installed 6 packages in 9ms
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/.github/.github
configfile: pyproject.toml
collected 52 items
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py .F....F......FFF [ 30%]
tests/test_pr_governance_audit_contract.py .. [ 34%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py ..F.F...FF. [ 55%]
tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py .....F....F.F..FF...... [100%]
=================================== FAILURES ===================================
_____________ test_changed_file_and_verification_posture_detection _____________
def test_changed_file_and_verification_posture_detection():
assert norm.mentions_changed_file_evidence("README.md", "")
assert norm.mentions_changed_file_evidence("scripts/ci/example.py", "")
assert not norm.mentions_changed_file_evidence("No path here", "")
assert not norm.mentions_changed_file_evidence("Security/privacy: checked", "")
> assert norm.mentions_verification_posture("", FULL_SUMMARY)
E AssertionError: assert False
E + where False = <function mentions_verification_posture at 0x7f3fa676cfe0>('', 'Verification posture: CodeGraph inspected scripts/ci/example.py on the current head.\nLinter/static: actionlint and b... checked.\nUser experience: user-facing behavior impact was checked.\nSecurity/privacy: security impact was checked.\n')
E + where <function mentions_verification_posture at 0x7f3fa676cfe0> = norm.mentions_verification_posture
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py:70: AssertionError
__________ test_valid_control_filters_shape_head_and_review_contract ___________
def test_valid_control_filters_shape_head_and_review_contract():
kwargs = {
"expected_head_sha": "head",
"expected_run_id": "run",
"expected_run_attempt": "attempt",
}
assert norm.valid_control([], **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(head_sha="other"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(run_id="other"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(run_attempt="other"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(result="COMMENT"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(reason=""), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(summary=""), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(findings="bad"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(findings=[finding()]), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(result="REQUEST_CHANGES", findings=[]), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(reason="No changed files"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(
control(reason="No source path", summary=FULL_SUMMARY.replace("scripts/ci/example.py", "source file")),
**kwargs,
) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(summary="scripts/ci/example.py"), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(control(summary=FULL_SUMMARY.replace("100%", "99%", 1)), **kwargs) is None
request = control(result="REQUEST_CHANGES", findings=[finding()])
assert norm.valid_control(dict(request, findings=["bad"]), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(dict(request, findings=[finding(line=True)]), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(dict(request, findings=[finding(line=0)]), **kwargs) is None
assert norm.valid_control(dict(request, findings=[finding(title="")]), **kwargs) is None
assert (
norm.valid_control(
dict(
request,
summary=(
"The review could not map each failed check to exact local source lines "
"from the available logs, so it needs better failed-check evidence."
),
),
**kwargs,
)
is None
)
assert norm.valid_control(request, **kwargs)["result"] == "REQUEST_CHANGES"
approve_without_findings_key = control()
approve_without_findings_key.pop("findings")
> assert norm.valid_control(approve_without_findings_key, **kwargs)["findings"] == []
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
E TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py:313: TypeError
____________ test_iter_json_objects_extracts_raw_and_embedded_json _____________
def test_iter_json_objects_extracts_raw_and_embedded_json():
> assert norm.iter_json_objects('{"a": 1}') == [{"a": 1}, {"a": 1}]
E AssertionError: assert [{'a': 1}] == [{'a': 1}, {'a': 1}]
E E Right contains one more item: {'a': 1}
E E Full diff:
E [
E {
E 'a': 1,
E },
E - {
E - 'a': 1,
E - },
E ]
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py:627: AssertionError
____________ test_main_normalizes_valid_output_and_reports_failures ____________
tmp_path = PosixPath('/tmp/pytest-of-runner/pytest-0/test_main_normalizes_valid_out0')
capsys = <_pytest.capture.CaptureFixture object at 0x7f3fa6f13830>
def test_main_normalizes_valid_output_and_reports_failures(tmp_path, capsys):
output = tmp_path / "opencode.txt"
output.write_text("prefix\n" + json.dumps(control()) + "\nsuffix", encoding="utf-8")
> assert norm.main(["prog", "head", "run", "attempt", str(output)]) == 0
E AssertionError: assert 4 == 0
E + where 4 = <function main at 0x7f3fa676d9e0>(['prog', 'head', 'run', 'attempt', '/tmp/pytest-of-runner/pytest-0/test_main_normalizes_valid_out0/opencode.txt'])
E + where <function main at 0x7f3fa676d9e0> = norm.main
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py:638: AssertionError
----------------------------- Captured stderr call -----------------------------
NO_CONCLUSION
________________ test_main_normalizes_and_escapes_html_markers _________________
tmp_path = PosixPath('/tmp/pytest-of-runner/pytest-0/test_main_normalizes_and_escap0')
def test_main_normalizes_and_escapes_html_markers(tmp_path):
output = tmp_path / "opencode.txt"
control_data = control(reason="Malicious --> comment", summary=FULL_SUMMARY + "\nBreakout <script>alert(1)</script>")
output.write_text(json.dumps(control_data), encoding="utf-8")
> assert norm.main(["prog", "head", "run", "attempt", str(output)]) == 0
E AssertionError: assert 4 == 0
E + where 4 = <function main at 0x7f3fa676d9e0>(['prog', 'head', 'run', 'attempt', '/tmp/pytest-of-runner/pytest-0/test_main_normalizes_and_escap0/opencode.txt'])
E + where <function main at 0x7f3fa676d9e0> = norm.main
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py:682: AssertionError
----------------------------- Captured stderr call -----------------------------
NO_CONCLUSION
_____________ test_process_queue_dispatches_same_repo_current_head _____________
monkeypatch = <_pytest.monkeypatch.MonkeyPatch object at 0x7f3fa6f131d0>
capsys = <_pytest.capture.CaptureFixture object at 0x7f3fa6f10f80>
def test_process_queue_dispatches_same_repo_current_head(monkeypatch, capsys):
"""The queue path dispatches one same-repository autofix."""
pr = make_pr()
calls = []
monkeypatch.setattr(fix, "fetch_open_prs", lambda repo, max_prs: [pr])
monkeypatch.setattr(fix, "needs_autofix", lambda pr: (True, ("current-head OpenCode requested changes",)))
monkeypatch.setattr(fix, "issue_comments", lambda repo, number: [])
monkeypatch.setattr(fix, "dispatch_autofix", lambda repo, pr, workflow, dry_run: calls.append(("dispatch", repo, pr["number"], workflow, dry_run)))
monkeypatch.setattr(fix, "create_fix_marker", lambda repo, pr, dry_run: calls.append(("marker", repo, pr["number"], dry_run)))
> assert fix.main(["--repo", "owner/repo", "--base-branch", "main", "--dry-run"]) == 0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py:70: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ../scripts/ci/pr_review_fix_scheduler.py:397: in main
return process_queue(args)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
../scripts/ci/pr_review_fix_scheduler.py:280: in process_queue
action, reasons = inspect_pr(
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ repo = 'owner/repo'
pr = {'number': 7, 'isDraft': False, 'baseRefName': 'main', 'baseRefOid': 'bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb', ...}
args = Namespace(repo='owner/repo', base_branch='main', pr_number=0, max_prs=50, max_dispatches=1, retry_hours=24, autofix_workflow='pr-review-autofix.yml', autofix_repository='ContextualWisdomLab/.github', dry_run=True, self_test=False)
comments = []
def inspect_pr(
repo: str,
pr: dict[str, Any],
args: argparse.Namespace,
*,
comments: list[dict[str, Any]] | None = None,
) -> tuple[str, tuple[str, ...]]:
"""Inspect one PR and optionally dispatch autofix."""
number = int(pr["number"])
if pr.get("isDraft"):
return "skip", ("draft PR",)
if pr.get("baseRefName") != args.base_branch:
return "skip", (f"base branch is {pr.get('baseRefName')}; expected {args.base_branch}",)
if not same_repository_head(repo, pr):
return "skip", ("external PR head is not writable by repository workflow credentials",)
needs_fix, reasons = needs_autofix(pr)
if not needs_fix:
return "skip", ("no current-head change request or active unresolved review thread",)
if comments is None:
comments = issue_comments(repo, number)
if recent_fix_marker_exists(comments, str(pr["headRefOid"]), args.retry_hours * 3600):
return "wait", ("recent autofix marker exists for this head",)
> dispatch_autofix(
repo,
pr,
workflow=args.autofix_workflow,
workflow_repository=args.autofix_repository,
dry_run=args.dry_run,
)
E TypeError: test_process_queue_dispatches_same_repo_current_head.<locals>.<lambda>() got an unexpected keyword argument 'workflow_repository'
../scripts/ci/pr_review_fix_scheduler.py:220: TypeError
______________________ test_context_run_json_and_pr_fetch ______________________
monkeypatch = <_pytest.monkeypatch.MonkeyPatch object at 0x7f3fa6e0ac00>
def test_context_run_json_and_pr_fetch(monkeypatch):
"""Context gh wrappers decode JSON and surface command errors."""
calls = []
def fake_run(argv, check, stdout, stderr, text):
calls.append(argv)
return subprocess.CompletedProcess(argv, 0, stdout='{"ok": true}', stderr="")
monkeypatch.setattr(context.subprocess, "run", fake_run)
> assert context.run_json(["api", "x"]) == {"ok": True}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py:102: ## Changed-File Evidence Map
```mermaid
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S1 --> I1["regression suite"]
I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V1["targeted test run"]

[github-actions]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f
• Workflow run: 28521658978
• Workflow attempt: 8
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f
• Workflow run: 28521658978
• Workflow attempt: 8

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request

[google-labs-jules]

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request

병합 충돌을 해결하고 origin/main 의 최신 변경 사항 위에 코드를 재배치(rebase)했습니다.

[Copilot]

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request

Merge conflicts resolved. The conflict in tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py was resolved by keeping the test_parse_workflow_action_required_reason test function from this PR while incorporating all changes from main. The merge commit is 1189d37.

[Copilot]

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request

The branch is already up to date with main. The merge conflicts were previously resolved in commit 1189d37, and no new conflicts exist. The PR can be merged cleanly.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

이 PR은 CI/리뷰 자동화 파이프라인 전반(샌드박스 실행 증거, autofix 스케줄링/컨텍스트, Strix/Noema 게이트, 워크플로우 운영 계약)을 확장·강화하는 변경들을 한 번에 도입합니다. 다만 PR 제목/설명(특정 함수 테스트 추가)과 실제 변경 범위가 크게 달라, 의도 추적과 리뷰가 어려운 상태입니다.

Changes:

• 샌드박스 기반 실행 증거 수집 도구 추가: sandboxed_verify.py, sandboxed_web_e2e.py 및 관련 테스트
• PR autofix 스케줄링/컨텍스트 및 Strix 게이트 로직/워크플로우 개선(중앙 워커 디스패치, changed-line 교차 판정 등)
• Noema LLM 리뷰 워크플로우/게이트 및 기타 CI 계약/프롬프트/의존성/문서 업데이트

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py	sandboxed_web_e2e 동작/엣지 케이스 E2E 테스트 추가
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py	sandboxed_verify 환경 스크러빙/복사/타임아웃/엔트리포인트 테스트 추가
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py	review_execution_contracts 계약 탐지 테스트 추가
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py	템플릿 렌더러 placeholder 치환 테스트 추가
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py	autofix 디스패치/컨텍스트/인자 검증 로직 변화에 맞춘 테스트 확장
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler_coverage.py	process_queue 예외/스킵 경로 커버리지 보강
tests/test_opencode_workflow_shell_syntax.py	opencode 워크플로우 run 블록 bash 구문 검증 테스트 추가
tests/test_noema_review_gate.py	Noema 게이트의 PR/체크/리뷰 상태 처리 및 LLM 호출 경로 테스트 추가
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py	OpenCode 후보 모델 reasoningEffort 검증기 테스트 추가
tests/init.py	테스트 패키지 초기화 파일 추가
scripts/ci/validate_opencode_failed_check_review.sh	failed-check 리뷰 텍스트 검증 로직/파서 구조 변경
scripts/ci/test_opencode_fact_gate_contract.sh	계약 문자열/섹션 명칭 변경에 따른 테스트 업데이트
scripts/ci/strix_required_workflow_smoke.sh	Strix 워크플로우 필수 스텝/락 파일 처리 smoke 검증 강화
scripts/ci/strix_quick_gate.sh	취약점 위치 레코드(라인 범위 포함) 추출 및 changed-line 교차 판정 추가
scripts/ci/sandboxed_web_e2e.py	백엔드/프론트엔드 서비스+E2E를 샌드박스 복사본에서 실행하는 헬퍼 추가
scripts/ci/sandboxed_verify.py	검증 커맨드를 샌드박스 복사본에서 실행하는 헬퍼 추가
scripts/ci/run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh	OpenCode 모델 풀 재시도/백오프/프롬프트 생성 런처 추가
scripts/ci/review_execution_contracts.py	repo 내 테스트/커버리지/린트/보안/런타임 계약 탐지기 추가
scripts/ci/render_opencode_prompt_template.py	쉘 확장 없이 템플릿 placeholder만 치환하는 렌더러 추가
scripts/ci/pr_review_fix_scheduler.py	autofix 디스패치 조건 강화, 중앙 워커 리포지토리 디스패치, N+1 완화(병렬 댓글 조회)
scripts/ci/pr_review_autofix_context.py	unresolved thread의 path 기반 “허용 경로” 추출/컨텍스트 출력 추가
scripts/ci/opencode_review_prompt_template.md	OpenCode 리뷰 계약/증거/실행 요구사항 문서화 강화
scripts/ci/opencode_review_approve_gate.sh	base/head SHA 전달 방식 및 파일 캐시로 검증 최적화
scripts/ci/noema_review_gate.py	Noema LLM 리뷰 게이트/서브밋 스크립트 추가
scripts/ci/emit_opencode_failed_check_fallback_findings.sh	pytest 실패 fallback 라벨 추출 로직 단순화
scripts/ci/collect_failed_check_evidence.sh	PR node id 조회 및 Strix 성공 run supersede 처리 등 증거 수집 개선
scripts/ci/assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py	reasoning-capable 모델의 high reasoningEffort 설정 검증기 추가
requirements-strix-ci.txt	Strix CI 의존성 제약(protobuf<7) 추가
requirements-strix-ci-hashes.txt	Strix hashed lock 업데이트(컴파일 조건/해시/버전 반영)
requirements-opencode-review-ci.txt	opencode-review CI 의존성 버전 업데이트(coverage)
README.md	중앙 스케줄러/샌드박스 실행 증거/오토픽스 계약 설명 확장
pyproject.toml	프로젝트 메타/의존성 그룹/pytest 설정 추가 및 기존 coverage 설정 유지
PR_GOVERNANCE_AUDIT.md	중앙 required-workflow 운영/온보딩 갭 기록 업데이트
opencode.jsonc	reasoningEffort 설정 강화 및 code-reviewer subagent/모델 옵션 확장
LICENSE	MIT 라이선스 추가
code-reviewer-prompt.md	reviewer-only 서브에이전트 계약 문서 추가
ci-review-prompt.md	CI 리뷰 에이전트 계약 대폭 확장
.jules/sentinel.md	보안 학습/가이드(민감정보/SSRF/쉘 등) 항목 추가
.jules/bolt.md	성능 최적화 학습/가이드 항목 추가/정리
.github/workflows/strix.yml	target_repository 입력, 토큰 교환, 상태 publish, 타임아웃/설정 변경 등 확장
.github/workflows/scorecard-analysis.yml	Scorecard 분석 워크플로우 추가
.github/workflows/pr-review-merge-scheduler.yml	트리거/입력/동시성/토큰 교환 및 디스패치 제한 등 스케줄러 확장
.github/workflows/pr-review-fix-scheduler.yml	target/autofix repository 입력 및 중앙 디스패치 계약 반영
.github/workflows/noema-review.yml	Required Noema Review 워크플로우 추가
.github/dependabot.yml	GitHub Actions/pip 주간 업데이트 설정 추가

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[github-actions]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 1189d372027b30f79e2678fe1ebd4db8635df0d4
• Workflow run: 28515936363
• Workflow attempt: 2

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S1 --> I1["regression suite"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R1 --> V1["targeted test run"]

Loading

[github-actions]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 1189d372027b30f79e2678fe1ebd4db8635df0d4
• Workflow run: 28515936363
• Workflow attempt: 3

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S1 --> I1["regression suite"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R1 --> V1["targeted test run"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 1189d372027b30f79e2678fe1ebd4db8635df0d4
• Workflow run: 28515936363
• Workflow attempt: 3

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S1 --> I1["regression suite"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R1 --> V1["targeted test run"]

Loading

@copilot 훨씬 많은 시간을 들여서 훨씬 많은 재시도와 exponential sleep을 추가해서라도 반드시 성공시켜라.

[Copilot]

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request

재확인 결과 이 PR에는 현재 merge conflict가 없습니다. 충돌 해결 커밋은 1189d37이고 최신 커밋 3e93417에서도 충돌 없이 병합 가능합니다.

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed ...

요청하신 대로 OpenCode 모델 풀에 훨씬 큰 재시도/지수 백오프를 적용했습니다. 반영 커밋은 544a090, 후속 정합성 조정은 3e93417입니다.

[google-labs-jules]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 1189d372027b30f79e2678fe1ebd4db8635df0d4
• Workflow run: 28515936363
• Workflow attempt: 3

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S1 --> I1["regression suite"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R1 --> V1["targeted test run"]

Loading

@copilot 훨씬 많은 시간을 들여서 훨씬 많은 재시도와 exponential sleep을 추가해서라도 반드시 성공시켜라.

요청하신 대로 재시도 횟수를 늘리고, Timeout 및 지수적 대기(exponential backoff)와 재시도 예산(budget)을 증가시키는 내용으로 설정을 업데이트했습니다.

[github-actions]

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 9da9137021170643239fd1e524acf85b0f9aa1f4.

• Head SHA: 9da9137021170643239fd1e524acf85b0f9aa1f4

• Workflow run: 28519533903

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Evidence

• Head SHA: 9da9137021170643239fd1e524acf85b0f9aa1f4
• Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
• Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.

Python project dependencies (.)

Using CPython 3.12.3 interpreter at: /usr/bin/python3
Creating virtual environment at: .venv
Resolved 17 packages in 116ms
Downloading pygments (1.2MiB)
Downloaded pygments
Prepared 13 packages in 109ms
Installed 13 packages in 11ms
+ attrs==26.1.0
+ click==8.4.2
+ colorama==0.4.6
+ coverage==7.14.3
+ iniconfig==2.3.0
+ interrogate==1.7.0
+ packaging==26.2
+ pluggy==1.6.0
+ py==1.11.0
+ pygments==2.20.0
+ pytest==9.1.1
+ pytest-cov==7.1.0
+ tabulate==0.10.0

• Result: PASS

Python coverage with missing-line report (.)

============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/.github/.github/pr-head
configfile: pyproject.toml
plugins: cov-7.1.0
collected 160 items
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py ....... [ 4%]
tests/test_noema_review_gate.py .......... [ 10%]
tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py ...F....... [ 17%]
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py ......................... [ 33%]
[ 33%]
tests/test_opencode_workflow_shell_syntax.py . [ 33%]
tests/test_pr_governance_audit_contract.py .. [ 35%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py ................... [ 46%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler_coverage.py .. [ 48%]
tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py ................................ [ 68%]
.............................. [ 86%]
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py .... [ 89%]
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py .. [ 90%]
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py ......... [ 96%]
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py ...... [100%]
=================================== FAILURES ===================================
___________ test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent ___________
def test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent():
"""Guard the runtime OpenCode workspace, not only repo-local config."""
workflow = Path(".github/workflows/opencode-review.yml").read_text(
encoding="utf-8"
)
assert "code-reviewer-prompt.md" in workflow
assert "sandboxed_verify.py" in workflow
assert "sandboxed_web_e2e.py" in workflow
assert "review_execution_contracts.py" in workflow
assert "SANDBOXED_VERIFY_RESULT" in workflow
assert "SANDBOXED_WEB_E2E_RESULT" in workflow
assert "Docker Compose, devcontainer, Nix, or temporary package-install sandbox" in workflow
assert "scientific, statistical, simulation" in workflow
assert "skewed true" in workflow
assert "object naming" in workflow
assert "connected code paths, rendering paths" in workflow
assert "CHECK_LOOKUP_GH_TOKEN" in workflow
assert "retrying with workflow github token" in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$GH_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$OPENCODE_APP_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$CHECK_LOOKUP_GH_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="${OPENCODE_APP_TOKEN:-$GH_TOKEN}"' not in workflow
assert "Review execution contracts" in workflow
assert "Accessibility/i18n:" in workflow
assert "Supply-chain/license:" in workflow
assert "Packaging:" in workflow
assert 'gsub("`"; "\'")' not in workflow
assert 'gsub("`"; "'")' in workflow
assert '"code-reviewer"' in workflow
assert workflow.count('"reasoningEffort": "high"') >= 10
assert '"task": "allow"' in workflow
assert 'cat >"$prompt_file" <<EOF' not in workflow
assert 'cat >"$prompt_file" <<\'EOF\'' not in workflow
assert "Run OpenCode PR Review model pool" in workflow
assert "opencode_review_model_pool" in workflow
assert "run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh" in workflow
assert "OPENCODE_MODEL_CANDIDATES" in workflow
model_pool_runner = Path("scripts/ci/run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
assert "assert_reasoning_effort_for_candidate" in model_pool_runner
assert "assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py" in model_pool_runner
assert "--config opencode.jsonc" in model_pool_runner
reasoning_effort_guard = Path("scripts/ci/assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
assert 'options.reasoningEffort=high' in reasoning_effort_guard
assert 'variants.high.reasoningEffort=high' in reasoning_effort_guard
assert "deepseek/deepseek-r1" in reasoning_effort_guard
assert "--config \"$OPENCODE_REVIEW_WORKDIR/opencode.jsonc\"" in workflow
assert 'timeout --kill-after=15s "${export_timeout_seconds}s" opencode export' in model_pool_runner
assert "session export did not complete within %ss" in model_pool_runner
assert "Read and follow the complete review contract" in model_pool_runner
assert "compact launcher as a reduced review policy" in model_pool_runner
assert "is_context_overflow_failure" in model_pool_runner
assert "tokens_limit_reached" in model_pool_runner
assert "skipping remaining attempts for this model" in model_pool_runner
assert "approve_low_risk_review_fallback_after_model_exhaustion" not in workflow
assert "changed_file_is_low_risk_review_fallback" not in workflow
assert "production source 또는 package manifest 변경이 없습니다" not in workflow
assert "request_changes_for_coverage_evidence_failure" in workflow
assert '"## Review outcome"' in workflow
assert '"## Check outcome"' not in workflow
assert "publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states" in workflow
assert 'timeout-minutes: 75' in workflow
assert re.search(r"Run OpenCode PR Review model pool[\s\S]{0,240}timeout-minutes: 20", workflow)
assert 'APPROVAL_CHECK_WAIT_ATTEMPTS: "81"' in workflow
assert 'APPROVAL_CHECK_WAIT_SLEEP_SECONDS: "30"' in workflow
assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_CANDIDATES: "github-models/openai/gpt-5-nano"' in workflow
> assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: "1"' in workflow
E assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: "1"' in 'name: Required OpenCode Review\n\non:\n pull_request_target:\n types: [opened, synchronize, reopened, ready_for_r... The scheduled and PR-event scheduler paths remain authoritative.\\n\' "$GH_REPOSITORY" "$base_branch"\n fi\n'
tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py:218: AssertionError
=============================== warnings summary ===============================
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py::test_module_entrypoint_success
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.assert_opencode_reasoning_effort' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.assert_opencode_reasoning_effort'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py::test_module_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.render_opencode_prompt_template' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.render_opencode_prompt_template'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py::test_discovers_package_managers_java_r_json_and_main
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.review_execution_contracts' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.review_execution_contracts'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py::test_module_main_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_verify' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_verify'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py::test_module_import_and_main_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_web_e2e' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_web_e2e'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
-- Docs: https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/how-to/capture-warnings.html
=========================== short test summary info ============================
FAILED tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py::test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent - assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: "1"' in 'name: Required OpenCode Review\n\non:\n pull_request_target:\n types: [opened, synchronize, reopened, ready_for_r... The scheduled and PR-event scheduler paths remain authoritative.\\n\' "$GH_REPOSITORY" "$base_branch"\n fi\n'
================== 1 failed, 159 passed, 5 warnings in 5.53s ===================

• Result: FAIL (exit 1)

Python docstring coverage advisory

RESULT: PASSED (minimum: 100.0%, actual: 100.0%)

• Result: PASS

Coverage Decision

• Result: FAIL
• Test evidence: not proven passing
• Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
• Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[github-actions]

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 9da9137021170643239fd1e524acf85b0f9aa1f4.

• Head SHA: 9da9137021170643239fd1e524acf85b0f9aa1f4

• Workflow run: 28519533903

• Workflow attempt: 2

Coverage evidence

Coverage Evidence

• Head SHA: 9da9137021170643239fd1e524acf85b0f9aa1f4
• Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
• Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.

Python project dependencies (.)

Using CPython 3.12.3 interpreter at: /usr/bin/python3
Creating virtual environment at: .venv
Resolved 17 packages in 116ms
Downloading pygments (1.2MiB)
Downloaded pygments
Prepared 13 packages in 109ms
Installed 13 packages in 11ms
+ attrs==26.1.0
+ click==8.4.2
+ colorama==0.4.6
+ coverage==7.14.3
+ iniconfig==2.3.0
+ interrogate==1.7.0
+ packaging==26.2
+ pluggy==1.6.0
+ py==1.11.0
+ pygments==2.20.0
+ pytest==9.1.1
+ pytest-cov==7.1.0
+ tabulate==0.10.0

• Result: PASS

Python coverage with missing-line report (.)

============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/.github/.github/pr-head
configfile: pyproject.toml
plugins: cov-7.1.0
collected 160 items
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py ....... [ 4%]
tests/test_noema_review_gate.py .......... [ 10%]
tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py ...F....... [ 17%]
tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py ......................... [ 33%]
[ 33%]
tests/test_opencode_workflow_shell_syntax.py . [ 33%]
tests/test_pr_governance_audit_contract.py .. [ 35%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler.py ................... [ 46%]
tests/test_pr_review_fix_scheduler_coverage.py .. [ 48%]
tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py ................................ [ 68%]
.............................. [ 86%]
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py .... [ 89%]
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py .. [ 90%]
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py ......... [ 96%]
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py ...... [100%]
=================================== FAILURES ===================================
___________ test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent ___________
def test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent():
"""Guard the runtime OpenCode workspace, not only repo-local config."""
workflow = Path(".github/workflows/opencode-review.yml").read_text(
encoding="utf-8"
)
assert "code-reviewer-prompt.md" in workflow
assert "sandboxed_verify.py" in workflow
assert "sandboxed_web_e2e.py" in workflow
assert "review_execution_contracts.py" in workflow
assert "SANDBOXED_VERIFY_RESULT" in workflow
assert "SANDBOXED_WEB_E2E_RESULT" in workflow
assert "Docker Compose, devcontainer, Nix, or temporary package-install sandbox" in workflow
assert "scientific, statistical, simulation" in workflow
assert "skewed true" in workflow
assert "object naming" in workflow
assert "connected code paths, rendering paths" in workflow
assert "CHECK_LOOKUP_GH_TOKEN" in workflow
assert "retrying with workflow github token" in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$GH_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$OPENCODE_APP_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="$CHECK_LOOKUP_GH_TOKEN"' in workflow
assert 'review_write_token="${OPENCODE_APP_TOKEN:-$GH_TOKEN}"' not in workflow
assert "Review execution contracts" in workflow
assert "Accessibility/i18n:" in workflow
assert "Supply-chain/license:" in workflow
assert "Packaging:" in workflow
assert 'gsub("`"; "\'")' not in workflow
assert 'gsub("`"; "'")' in workflow
assert '"code-reviewer"' in workflow
assert workflow.count('"reasoningEffort": "high"') >= 10
assert '"task": "allow"' in workflow
assert 'cat >"$prompt_file" <<EOF' not in workflow
assert 'cat >"$prompt_file" <<\'EOF\'' not in workflow
assert "Run OpenCode PR Review model pool" in workflow
assert "opencode_review_model_pool" in workflow
assert "run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh" in workflow
assert "OPENCODE_MODEL_CANDIDATES" in workflow
model_pool_runner = Path("scripts/ci/run_opencode_review_model_pool.sh").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
assert "assert_reasoning_effort_for_candidate" in model_pool_runner
assert "assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py" in model_pool_runner
assert "--config opencode.jsonc" in model_pool_runner
reasoning_effort_guard = Path("scripts/ci/assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
assert 'options.reasoningEffort=high' in reasoning_effort_guard
assert 'variants.high.reasoningEffort=high' in reasoning_effort_guard
assert "deepseek/deepseek-r1" in reasoning_effort_guard
assert "--config \"$OPENCODE_REVIEW_WORKDIR/opencode.jsonc\"" in workflow
assert 'timeout --kill-after=15s "${export_timeout_seconds}s" opencode export' in model_pool_runner
assert "session export did not complete within %ss" in model_pool_runner
assert "Read and follow the complete review contract" in model_pool_runner
assert "compact launcher as a reduced review policy" in model_pool_runner
assert "is_context_overflow_failure" in model_pool_runner
assert "tokens_limit_reached" in model_pool_runner
assert "skipping remaining attempts for this model" in model_pool_runner
assert "approve_low_risk_review_fallback_after_model_exhaustion" not in workflow
assert "changed_file_is_low_risk_review_fallback" not in workflow
assert "production source 또는 package manifest 변경이 없습니다" not in workflow
assert "request_changes_for_coverage_evidence_failure" in workflow
assert '"## Review outcome"' in workflow
assert '"## Check outcome"' not in workflow
assert "publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states" in workflow
assert 'timeout-minutes: 75' in workflow
assert re.search(r"Run OpenCode PR Review model pool[\s\S]{0,240}timeout-minutes: 20", workflow)
assert 'APPROVAL_CHECK_WAIT_ATTEMPTS: "81"' in workflow
assert 'APPROVAL_CHECK_WAIT_SLEEP_SECONDS: "30"' in workflow
assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_CANDIDATES: "github-models/openai/gpt-5-nano"' in workflow
> assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: "1"' in workflow
E assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: "1"' in 'name: Required OpenCode Review\n\non:\n pull_request_target:\n types: [opened, synchronize, reopened, ready_for_r... The scheduled and PR-event scheduler paths remain authoritative.\\n\' "$GH_REPOSITORY" "$base_branch"\n fi\n'
tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py:218: AssertionError
=============================== warnings summary ===============================
tests/test_assert_opencode_reasoning_effort.py::test_module_entrypoint_success
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.assert_opencode_reasoning_effort' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.assert_opencode_reasoning_effort'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_render_opencode_prompt_template.py::test_module_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.render_opencode_prompt_template' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.render_opencode_prompt_template'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_review_execution_contracts.py::test_discovers_package_managers_java_r_json_and_main
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.review_execution_contracts' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.review_execution_contracts'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_sandboxed_verify.py::test_module_main_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_verify' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_verify'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
tests/test_sandboxed_web_e2e.py::test_module_import_and_main_entrypoint
<frozen runpy>:128: RuntimeWarning: 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_web_e2e' found in sys.modules after import of package 'scripts.ci', but prior to execution of 'scripts.ci.sandboxed_web_e2e'; this may result in unpredictable behaviour
-- Docs: https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/how-to/capture-warnings.html
=========================== short test summary info ============================
FAILED tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py::test_workflow_provisions_sandbox_tool_and_reviewer_agent - assert 'OPENCODE_MODEL_ATTEMPTS: "1"' in 'name: Required OpenCode Review\n\non:\n pull_request_target:\n types: [opened, synchronize, reopened, ready_for_r... The scheduled and PR-event scheduler paths remain authoritative.\\n\' "$GH_REPOSITORY" "$base_branch"\n fi\n'
================== 1 failed, 159 passed, 5 warnings in 5.53s ===================

• Result: FAIL (exit 1)

Python docstring coverage advisory

RESULT: PASSED (minimum: 100.0%, actual: 100.0%)

• Result: PASS

Coverage Decision

• Result: FAIL
• Test evidence: not proven passing
• Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
• Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[github-actions]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f
• Workflow run: 28521658978
• Workflow attempt: 1

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[github-actions]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f
• Workflow run: 28521658978
• Workflow attempt: 2

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[github-actions]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f
• Workflow run: 28521658978
• Workflow attempt: 3

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[github-actions]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f
• Workflow run: 28521658978
• Workflow attempt: 4

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[github-actions]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f
• Workflow run: 28521658978
• Workflow attempt: 5

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[github-actions]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f
• Workflow run: 28521658978
• Workflow attempt: 6

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[github-actions]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f
• Workflow run: 28521658978
• Workflow attempt: 7

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[github-actions]

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

• Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
• Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
• Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
• Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
• Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
• Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
• Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, tests/test_pr_review_merge_scheduler.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
• Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
• Head SHA: 8b6308464308d4cf1d84cbf35947b00cfb20820f
• Workflow run: 28521658978
• Workflow attempt: 8

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

재기동

[seonghobae]

Closing during org-wide PR backlog reduction. This looks like a low-priority automated maintenance PR (test coverage only), while the repository has a large backlog of security, conflict, and required-workflow work. Reopen or recreate a fresh PR if this change is still needed.

[google-labs-jules]

Closing during org-wide PR backlog reduction. This looks like a low-priority automated maintenance PR (test coverage only), while the repository has a large backlog of security, conflict, and required-workflow work. Reopen or recreate a fresh PR if this change is still needed.

알겠습니다. 이 작업이 더 이상 유효하지 않음을 확인하였으며, 이 태스크에 대한 작업을 중지하겠습니다.