Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Reject trivial approvals for material changes - #222
Conversation
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues. FindingsNo blocking findings. SummaryApproval sufficiency: Changes enforce strict review standards for material PRs. Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence initialized, all changed files inspected. Linter/static: Python type hints and patterns validated. TDD/regression: 100% test coverage maintained. Coverage: Coverage execution evidence shows 100% test coverage. Docstring coverage: 100% docstring coverage maintained. DAG: Control flow maps changed files to review gate logic. PoC/execution: Tests pass in sandboxed environment. DDD/domain: Governance invariants preserved. CDD/context: Historical patterns maintained. Similar issues: Precedents from #217 considered. Claim/concept check: Original PR intent validated. Standards search: Matches OpenCode review standards. Compatibility/convention: Consistent with repository conventions. Breaking-change/backcompat: Non-breaking change. Performance: Optimized regex patterns. Developer experience: Clear error messaging added. User experience: Prevents unsafe approvals. Visual/DOM: N/A. Accessibility/i18n: Korean/English support maintained. Supply-chain/license: No new dependencies. Packaging: Maintained existing contracts. Security/privacy: Prevents approval bypass risks. Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart 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["CI script (3 files)"]
S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script (3 files)"]
R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.
Findings
No blocking findings.
Summary
Approval sufficiency: Changes enforce strict review standards for material PRs. Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence initialized, all changed files inspected. Linter/static: Python type hints and patterns validated. TDD/regression: 100% test coverage maintained. Coverage: Coverage execution evidence shows 100% test coverage. Docstring coverage: 100% docstring coverage maintained. DAG: Control flow maps changed files to review gate logic. PoC/execution: Tests pass in sandboxed environment. DDD/domain: Governance invariants preserved. CDD/context: Historical patterns maintained. Similar issues: Precedents from #217 considered. Claim/concept check: Original PR intent validated. Standards search: Matches OpenCode review standards. Compatibility/convention: Consistent with repository conventions. Breaking-change/backcompat: Non-breaking change. Performance: Optimized regex patterns. Developer experience: Clear error messaging added. User experience: Prevents unsafe approvals. Visual/DOM: N/A. Accessibility/i18n: Korean/English support maintained. Supply-chain/license: No new dependencies. Packaging: Maintained existing contracts. Security/privacy: Prevents approval bypass risks.
Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py, scripts/ci/opencode_review_prompt_template.md, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py, and 1 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.
- Result: APPROVE
- Reason: PR implements critical guardrails against trivial approvals for material changes
- Head SHA:
fa096b77701afbd598ad20d668eeaa158304d381 - Workflow run: 28456723460
- Workflow attempt: 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["CI script (3 files)"]
S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script (3 files)"]
R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
요약
simple typo,string-only,no verification needed,no tests needed식 approval을NO_CONCLUSION으로 거부합니다.배경
#220에서 실제 변경 파일은
.github/workflows/strix.yml,scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh,tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py였지만 OpenCode approval summary가 먼저simple typo fix,No tests are needed for a string change라고 말했습니다. 뒤쪽 evidence map은 실제 변경 파일을 알고 있었기 때문에, 이는 reasoning effort 문제가 아니라 approval contract의 모순 검출 누락입니다.검증
python3 -m pytest tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py -qpython3 -m pytest tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py -qpython3 -m pytest tests -qpython3 -m coverage run -m pytest tests -q && python3 -m coverage report --show-missing --fail-under=100python3 -m py_compile scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py && bash -n scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh && git diff --checkactionlint -no-color -shellcheck= .github/workflows/opencode-review.ymlruby -e 'require "yaml"; YAML.load_file(ARGV[0]); puts "yaml ok"' .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml