fix(cartesia): run the wrapped agent exactly once per event by abhay-codes07 · Pull Request #1280 · supermemoryai/supermemory

abhay-codes07 · 2026-07-13T05:38:12Z

What

SupermemoryCartesiaAgent.process() could run the wrapped agent twice for one event.

The whole method body sat in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process():

try:
...memoryenrichment...
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event):
yieldoutputexceptExceptionase:
logger.error(f"[Supermemory] Error in process: {e}")
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event): # runs the WHOLE agent againyieldoutput

The fallback exists so a memory failure never blocks the agent — but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream (LLM connection drop after chunks were already yielded) triggered the fallback too. The caller received a second, full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. This applied to every event type, not just UserTurnEnded.

Fix

Scope the guard to the memory enrichment/injection/storage block only, then run the agent iteration exactly once after it:

enrichment failures are logged and absorbed, and the agent still runs — same guarantee as before
agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run

No changes to the enrichment, prompt-injection, or storage logic themselves.

Testing

New tests/test_single_agent_run.py streams from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream:

each chunk is delivered exactly once, the inner agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates — both mid-stream tests fail against the previous implementation (verified: run counter hits 2 on the old code)
a third test pins the intended behaviour that an enrichment failure still lets the agent run exactly once

python -m pytest tests in the package — 4 passed.

cc @MaheshtheDev

Copilot

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

MaheshtheDev · 2026-09-01T22:10:16Z

@abhay-codes07 can you fix the merge conflicts and please read the code and its quality why do we need 6 lines of comments?

process() wrapped both the memory enrichment and the agent streaming loop in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process(). The fallback was meant to keep the agent running when memory enrichment failed, but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream, after chunks had already been yielded to the caller, re-ran the entire agent from scratch: the caller received a second full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. Scope the guard to the memory-enrichment/injection/storage block only, and run the agent iteration exactly once after it. Enrichment failures are logged and absorbed as before; agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run. Regression tests stream from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream: each chunk is delivered exactly once, the agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates (both tests fail against the previous implementation with run_count == 2). A third test pins the intended behaviour that enrichment failures still let the agent run once.

abhay-codes07 · 2026-09-01T23:26:22Z

fixed it @MaheshtheDev I just mistakenly wrote the bug explaining in the code comment itself mistakenly not following the code structure

abhay-codes07 · 2026-07-13T05:38:12Z

What

SupermemoryCartesiaAgent.process() could run the wrapped agent twice for one event.

The whole method body sat in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process():

try:
...memoryenrichment...
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event):
yieldoutputexceptExceptionase:
logger.error(f"[Supermemory] Error in process: {e}")
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event): # runs the WHOLE agent againyieldoutput

The fallback exists so a memory failure never blocks the agent — but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream (LLM connection drop after chunks were already yielded) triggered the fallback too. The caller received a second, full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. This applied to every event type, not just UserTurnEnded.

Fix

Scope the guard to the memory enrichment/injection/storage block only, then run the agent iteration exactly once after it:

enrichment failures are logged and absorbed, and the agent still runs — same guarantee as before
agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run

No changes to the enrichment, prompt-injection, or storage logic themselves.

Testing

New tests/test_single_agent_run.py streams from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream:

each chunk is delivered exactly once, the inner agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates — both mid-stream tests fail against the previous implementation (verified: run counter hits 2 on the old code)
a third test pins the intended behaviour that an enrichment failure still lets the agent run exactly once

python -m pytest tests in the package — 4 passed.

cc @MaheshtheDev

Copilot

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

MaheshtheDev · 2026-09-01T22:10:16Z

@abhay-codes07 can you fix the merge conflicts and please read the code and its quality why do we need 6 lines of comments?

process() wrapped both the memory enrichment and the agent streaming loop in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process(). The fallback was meant to keep the agent running when memory enrichment failed, but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream, after chunks had already been yielded to the caller, re-ran the entire agent from scratch: the caller received a second full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. Scope the guard to the memory-enrichment/injection/storage block only, and run the agent iteration exactly once after it. Enrichment failures are logged and absorbed as before; agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run. Regression tests stream from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream: each chunk is delivered exactly once, the agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates (both tests fail against the previous implementation with run_count == 2). A third test pins the intended behaviour that enrichment failures still let the agent run once.

abhay-codes07 · 2026-09-01T23:26:22Z

fixed it @MaheshtheDev I just mistakenly wrote the bug explaining in the code comment itself mistakenly not following the code structure

abhay-codes07 · 2026-07-13T05:38:12Z

What

SupermemoryCartesiaAgent.process() could run the wrapped agent twice for one event.

The whole method body sat in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process():

try:
...memoryenrichment...
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event):
yieldoutputexceptExceptionase:
logger.error(f"[Supermemory] Error in process: {e}")
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event): # runs the WHOLE agent againyieldoutput

The fallback exists so a memory failure never blocks the agent — but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream (LLM connection drop after chunks were already yielded) triggered the fallback too. The caller received a second, full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. This applied to every event type, not just UserTurnEnded.

Fix

Scope the guard to the memory enrichment/injection/storage block only, then run the agent iteration exactly once after it:

enrichment failures are logged and absorbed, and the agent still runs — same guarantee as before
agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run

No changes to the enrichment, prompt-injection, or storage logic themselves.

Testing

New tests/test_single_agent_run.py streams from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream:

each chunk is delivered exactly once, the inner agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates — both mid-stream tests fail against the previous implementation (verified: run counter hits 2 on the old code)
a third test pins the intended behaviour that an enrichment failure still lets the agent run exactly once

python -m pytest tests in the package — 4 passed.

cc @MaheshtheDev

Copilot

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

MaheshtheDev · 2026-09-01T22:10:16Z

@abhay-codes07 can you fix the merge conflicts and please read the code and its quality why do we need 6 lines of comments?

process() wrapped both the memory enrichment and the agent streaming loop in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process(). The fallback was meant to keep the agent running when memory enrichment failed, but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream, after chunks had already been yielded to the caller, re-ran the entire agent from scratch: the caller received a second full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. Scope the guard to the memory-enrichment/injection/storage block only, and run the agent iteration exactly once after it. Enrichment failures are logged and absorbed as before; agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run. Regression tests stream from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream: each chunk is delivered exactly once, the agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates (both tests fail against the previous implementation with run_count == 2). A third test pins the intended behaviour that enrichment failures still let the agent run once.

abhay-codes07 · 2026-09-01T23:26:22Z

fixed it @MaheshtheDev I just mistakenly wrote the bug explaining in the code comment itself mistakenly not following the code structure

abhay-codes07 · 2026-07-13T05:38:12Z

What

SupermemoryCartesiaAgent.process() could run the wrapped agent twice for one event.

The whole method body sat in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process():

try:
...memoryenrichment...
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event):
yieldoutputexceptExceptionase:
logger.error(f"[Supermemory] Error in process: {e}")
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event): # runs the WHOLE agent againyieldoutput

The fallback exists so a memory failure never blocks the agent — but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream (LLM connection drop after chunks were already yielded) triggered the fallback too. The caller received a second, full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. This applied to every event type, not just UserTurnEnded.

Fix

Scope the guard to the memory enrichment/injection/storage block only, then run the agent iteration exactly once after it:

enrichment failures are logged and absorbed, and the agent still runs — same guarantee as before
agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run

No changes to the enrichment, prompt-injection, or storage logic themselves.

Testing

New tests/test_single_agent_run.py streams from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream:

each chunk is delivered exactly once, the inner agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates — both mid-stream tests fail against the previous implementation (verified: run counter hits 2 on the old code)
a third test pins the intended behaviour that an enrichment failure still lets the agent run exactly once

python -m pytest tests in the package — 4 passed.

cc @MaheshtheDev

Copilot

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

MaheshtheDev · 2026-09-01T22:10:16Z

@abhay-codes07 can you fix the merge conflicts and please read the code and its quality why do we need 6 lines of comments?

process() wrapped both the memory enrichment and the agent streaming loop in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process(). The fallback was meant to keep the agent running when memory enrichment failed, but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream, after chunks had already been yielded to the caller, re-ran the entire agent from scratch: the caller received a second full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. Scope the guard to the memory-enrichment/injection/storage block only, and run the agent iteration exactly once after it. Enrichment failures are logged and absorbed as before; agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run. Regression tests stream from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream: each chunk is delivered exactly once, the agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates (both tests fail against the previous implementation with run_count == 2). A third test pins the intended behaviour that enrichment failures still let the agent run once.

abhay-codes07 · 2026-09-01T23:26:22Z

fixed it @MaheshtheDev I just mistakenly wrote the bug explaining in the code comment itself mistakenly not following the code structure

abhay-codes07 · 2026-07-13T05:38:12Z

What

SupermemoryCartesiaAgent.process() could run the wrapped agent twice for one event.

The whole method body sat in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process():

try:
...memoryenrichment...
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event):
yieldoutputexceptExceptionase:
logger.error(f"[Supermemory] Error in process: {e}")
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event): # runs the WHOLE agent againyieldoutput

The fallback exists so a memory failure never blocks the agent — but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream (LLM connection drop after chunks were already yielded) triggered the fallback too. The caller received a second, full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. This applied to every event type, not just UserTurnEnded.

Fix

Scope the guard to the memory enrichment/injection/storage block only, then run the agent iteration exactly once after it:

enrichment failures are logged and absorbed, and the agent still runs — same guarantee as before
agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run

No changes to the enrichment, prompt-injection, or storage logic themselves.

Testing

New tests/test_single_agent_run.py streams from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream:

each chunk is delivered exactly once, the inner agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates — both mid-stream tests fail against the previous implementation (verified: run counter hits 2 on the old code)
a third test pins the intended behaviour that an enrichment failure still lets the agent run exactly once

python -m pytest tests in the package — 4 passed.

cc @MaheshtheDev

Copilot

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

MaheshtheDev · 2026-09-01T22:10:16Z

@abhay-codes07 can you fix the merge conflicts and please read the code and its quality why do we need 6 lines of comments?

process() wrapped both the memory enrichment and the agent streaming loop in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process(). The fallback was meant to keep the agent running when memory enrichment failed, but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream, after chunks had already been yielded to the caller, re-ran the entire agent from scratch: the caller received a second full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. Scope the guard to the memory-enrichment/injection/storage block only, and run the agent iteration exactly once after it. Enrichment failures are logged and absorbed as before; agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run. Regression tests stream from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream: each chunk is delivered exactly once, the agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates (both tests fail against the previous implementation with run_count == 2). A third test pins the intended behaviour that enrichment failures still let the agent run once.

abhay-codes07 · 2026-09-01T23:26:22Z

fixed it @MaheshtheDev I just mistakenly wrote the bug explaining in the code comment itself mistakenly not following the code structure

abhay-codes07 · 2026-07-13T05:38:12Z

What

SupermemoryCartesiaAgent.process() could run the wrapped agent twice for one event.

The whole method body sat in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process():

try:
...memoryenrichment...
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event):
yieldoutputexceptExceptionase:
logger.error(f"[Supermemory] Error in process: {e}")
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event): # runs the WHOLE agent againyieldoutput

The fallback exists so a memory failure never blocks the agent — but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream (LLM connection drop after chunks were already yielded) triggered the fallback too. The caller received a second, full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. This applied to every event type, not just UserTurnEnded.

Fix

Scope the guard to the memory enrichment/injection/storage block only, then run the agent iteration exactly once after it:

enrichment failures are logged and absorbed, and the agent still runs — same guarantee as before
agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run

No changes to the enrichment, prompt-injection, or storage logic themselves.

Testing

New tests/test_single_agent_run.py streams from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream:

each chunk is delivered exactly once, the inner agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates — both mid-stream tests fail against the previous implementation (verified: run counter hits 2 on the old code)
a third test pins the intended behaviour that an enrichment failure still lets the agent run exactly once

python -m pytest tests in the package — 4 passed.

cc @MaheshtheDev

Copilot

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

MaheshtheDev · 2026-09-01T22:10:16Z

@abhay-codes07 can you fix the merge conflicts and please read the code and its quality why do we need 6 lines of comments?

process() wrapped both the memory enrichment and the agent streaming loop in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process(). The fallback was meant to keep the agent running when memory enrichment failed, but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream, after chunks had already been yielded to the caller, re-ran the entire agent from scratch: the caller received a second full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. Scope the guard to the memory-enrichment/injection/storage block only, and run the agent iteration exactly once after it. Enrichment failures are logged and absorbed as before; agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run. Regression tests stream from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream: each chunk is delivered exactly once, the agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates (both tests fail against the previous implementation with run_count == 2). A third test pins the intended behaviour that enrichment failures still let the agent run once.

abhay-codes07 · 2026-09-01T23:26:22Z

fixed it @MaheshtheDev I just mistakenly wrote the bug explaining in the code comment itself mistakenly not following the code structure

abhay-codes07 · 2026-07-13T05:38:12Z

What

SupermemoryCartesiaAgent.process() could run the wrapped agent twice for one event.

The whole method body sat in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process():

try:
...memoryenrichment...
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event):
yieldoutputexceptExceptionase:
logger.error(f"[Supermemory] Error in process: {e}")
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event): # runs the WHOLE agent againyieldoutput

The fallback exists so a memory failure never blocks the agent — but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream (LLM connection drop after chunks were already yielded) triggered the fallback too. The caller received a second, full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. This applied to every event type, not just UserTurnEnded.

Fix

Scope the guard to the memory enrichment/injection/storage block only, then run the agent iteration exactly once after it:

enrichment failures are logged and absorbed, and the agent still runs — same guarantee as before
agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run

No changes to the enrichment, prompt-injection, or storage logic themselves.

Testing

New tests/test_single_agent_run.py streams from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream:

each chunk is delivered exactly once, the inner agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates — both mid-stream tests fail against the previous implementation (verified: run counter hits 2 on the old code)
a third test pins the intended behaviour that an enrichment failure still lets the agent run exactly once

python -m pytest tests in the package — 4 passed.

cc @MaheshtheDev

Copilot

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

MaheshtheDev · 2026-09-01T22:10:16Z

@abhay-codes07 can you fix the merge conflicts and please read the code and its quality why do we need 6 lines of comments?

process() wrapped both the memory enrichment and the agent streaming loop in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process(). The fallback was meant to keep the agent running when memory enrichment failed, but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream, after chunks had already been yielded to the caller, re-ran the entire agent from scratch: the caller received a second full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. Scope the guard to the memory-enrichment/injection/storage block only, and run the agent iteration exactly once after it. Enrichment failures are logged and absorbed as before; agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run. Regression tests stream from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream: each chunk is delivered exactly once, the agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates (both tests fail against the previous implementation with run_count == 2). A third test pins the intended behaviour that enrichment failures still let the agent run once.

abhay-codes07 · 2026-09-01T23:26:22Z

fixed it @MaheshtheDev I just mistakenly wrote the bug explaining in the code comment itself mistakenly not following the code structure

abhay-codes07 · 2026-07-13T05:38:12Z

What

SupermemoryCartesiaAgent.process() could run the wrapped agent twice for one event.

The whole method body sat in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process():

try:
...memoryenrichment...
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event):
yieldoutputexceptExceptionase:
logger.error(f"[Supermemory] Error in process: {e}")
asyncforoutputinself.agent.process(env, event): # runs the WHOLE agent againyieldoutput

The fallback exists so a memory failure never blocks the agent — but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream (LLM connection drop after chunks were already yielded) triggered the fallback too. The caller received a second, full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. This applied to every event type, not just UserTurnEnded.

Fix

Scope the guard to the memory enrichment/injection/storage block only, then run the agent iteration exactly once after it:

enrichment failures are logged and absorbed, and the agent still runs — same guarantee as before
agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run

No changes to the enrichment, prompt-injection, or storage logic themselves.

Testing

New tests/test_single_agent_run.py streams from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream:

each chunk is delivered exactly once, the inner agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates — both mid-stream tests fail against the previous implementation (verified: run counter hits 2 on the old code)
a third test pins the intended behaviour that an enrichment failure still lets the agent run exactly once

python -m pytest tests in the package — 4 passed.

cc @MaheshtheDev

Copilot

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

MaheshtheDev · 2026-09-01T22:10:16Z

@abhay-codes07 can you fix the merge conflicts and please read the code and its quality why do we need 6 lines of comments?

process() wrapped both the memory enrichment and the agent streaming loop in a single try/except whose fallback re-invoked self.agent.process(). The fallback was meant to keep the agent running when memory enrichment failed, but because the agent's own iteration lived inside the same try, an agent error raised mid-stream, after chunks had already been yielded to the caller, re-ran the entire agent from scratch: the caller received a second full response concatenated onto the partial one, plus a duplicate billable LLM call. Scope the guard to the memory-enrichment/injection/storage block only, and run the agent iteration exactly once after it. Enrichment failures are logged and absorbed as before; agent errors now propagate to the caller instead of triggering a duplicate run. Regression tests stream from a fake inner agent that dies mid-stream: each chunk is delivered exactly once, the agent's run counter stays at 1, and the error propagates (both tests fail against the previous implementation with run_count == 2). A third test pins the intended behaviour that enrichment failures still let the agent run once.

abhay-codes07 · 2026-09-01T23:26:22Z

fixed it @MaheshtheDev I just mistakenly wrote the bug explaining in the code comment itself mistakenly not following the code structure

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings July 13, 2026 05:38

CopilotAI reviewed Jul 13, 2026

graphite-appBot assigned abhay-codes07 Jul 13, 2026

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from 8c84e0f to ba948b4Compare August 21, 2026 23:58

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from ba948b4 to c3295abCompare September 1, 2026 23:17

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings July 13, 2026 05:38

CopilotAI reviewed Jul 13, 2026

graphite-appBot assigned abhay-codes07 Jul 13, 2026

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from 8c84e0f to ba948b4Compare August 21, 2026 23:58

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from ba948b4 to c3295abCompare September 1, 2026 23:17

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings July 13, 2026 05:38

CopilotAI reviewed Jul 13, 2026

graphite-appBot assigned abhay-codes07 Jul 13, 2026

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from 8c84e0f to ba948b4Compare August 21, 2026 23:58

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from ba948b4 to c3295abCompare September 1, 2026 23:17

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings July 13, 2026 05:38

CopilotAI reviewed Jul 13, 2026

graphite-appBot assigned abhay-codes07 Jul 13, 2026

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from 8c84e0f to ba948b4Compare August 21, 2026 23:58

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from ba948b4 to c3295abCompare September 1, 2026 23:17

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings July 13, 2026 05:38

CopilotAI reviewed Jul 13, 2026

graphite-appBot assigned abhay-codes07 Jul 13, 2026

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from 8c84e0f to ba948b4Compare August 21, 2026 23:58

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from ba948b4 to c3295abCompare September 1, 2026 23:17

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings July 13, 2026 05:38

CopilotAI reviewed Jul 13, 2026

graphite-appBot assigned abhay-codes07 Jul 13, 2026

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from 8c84e0f to ba948b4Compare August 21, 2026 23:58

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from ba948b4 to c3295abCompare September 1, 2026 23:17

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings July 13, 2026 05:38

CopilotAI reviewed Jul 13, 2026

graphite-appBot assigned abhay-codes07 Jul 13, 2026

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from 8c84e0f to ba948b4Compare August 21, 2026 23:58

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from ba948b4 to c3295abCompare September 1, 2026 23:17

CopilotAI review requested due to automatic review settings July 13, 2026 05:38

CopilotAI reviewed Jul 13, 2026

graphite-appBot assigned abhay-codes07 Jul 13, 2026

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from 8c84e0f to ba948b4Compare August 21, 2026 23:58

abhay-codes07 force-pushed the fix/cartesia-single-agent-run branch from ba948b4 to c3295abCompare September 1, 2026 23:17

Uh oh!

Conversation

abhay-codes07 commented Jul 13, 2026

What

Fix

Testing

Uh oh!

CopilotAI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MaheshtheDev commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

abhay-codes07 commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

abhay-codes07 commented Jul 13, 2026

What

Fix

Testing

Uh oh!

CopilotAI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MaheshtheDev commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

abhay-codes07 commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

abhay-codes07 commented Jul 13, 2026

What

Fix

Testing

Uh oh!

CopilotAI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MaheshtheDev commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

abhay-codes07 commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

abhay-codes07 commented Jul 13, 2026

What

Fix

Testing

Uh oh!

CopilotAI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MaheshtheDev commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

abhay-codes07 commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!