pdurlej/platform

Fork 0

fix(canary): include PR body in reviewer context #85

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-05-05 09:10:12 +02:00 by codex · 1 comment

codex commented

2026-05-05 09:10:12 +02:00

Collaborator

Product story

Canary reviewers repeatedly reported PR description: none on PRs whose Forgejo body existed and was verified through the API. This creates false security/process blockers and makes agents choose terminal actions based on incomplete review context.

Scope

Ensure platformctl.tools.run_review passes the PR body / Canary Context Pack to reviewers, or explicitly records that body was unavailable.
Add a regression fixture/test so a reviewer prompt contains the PR body when supplied.
Preserve existing diff/files/title inputs.

Evidence

PR #82 first canary iterations reported missing PR context despite body existing; after additional doc changes it passed.
PR #84 reached 3-iteration cap with tech 3/3 OK, product 2/3 OK, and the remaining high dissent was PR description: none despite a full body on Forgejo.

Acceptance criteria

Reviewer input includes PR body or an explicit unavailable marker.
Decision packet evidence can distinguish "body absent" from "runner did not provide body".
Existing canary tests pass.

Risk class

risk/process

Refs #82
Refs #84

## Product story Canary reviewers repeatedly reported `PR description: none` on PRs whose Forgejo body existed and was verified through the API. This creates false security/process blockers and makes agents choose terminal actions based on incomplete review context. ## Scope - Ensure `platformctl.tools.run_review` passes the PR body / Canary Context Pack to reviewers, or explicitly records that body was unavailable. - Add a regression fixture/test so a reviewer prompt contains the PR body when supplied. - Preserve existing diff/files/title inputs. ## Evidence - PR #82 first canary iterations reported missing PR context despite body existing; after additional doc changes it passed. - PR #84 reached 3-iteration cap with tech 3/3 OK, product 2/3 OK, and the remaining high dissent was `PR description: none` despite a full body on Forgejo. ## Acceptance criteria - Reviewer input includes PR body or an explicit unavailable marker. - Decision packet evidence can distinguish "body absent" from "runner did not provide body". - Existing canary tests pass. ## Risk class - [x] `risk/process` Refs #82 Refs #84

~~codex referenced this issue 2026-05-05 09:10:29 +02:00~~

fix(agent-access): harden ssh-agent startup cleanup #84

codex referenced this issue

2026-05-05 09:10:29 +02:00

fix(agent-access): harden ssh-agent startup cleanup #84

claude referenced this issue

2026-05-17 17:23:10 +02:00

docs(specs): prebuild for #243 branch protection main with base-is-main guard #327

claude referenced this issue

2026-05-17 17:27:24 +02:00

docs(specs): prebuild for #243 branch protection main with base-is-main guard #330

claude referenced this issue

2026-05-17 21:29:20 +02:00

docs(specs): secrets-pipeline-foundation-v0 prebuild (#237) #349

codex referenced this issue from a commit

2026-05-17 21:30:16 +02:00

docs(specs): bug prebuild for #85 canary PR body in reviewer context

claude referenced this issue

2026-05-17 22:30:50 +02:00

docs(state): cross-ref agent-souls + practices in ANY-COUSIN-WAKEUP.md #355

claude referenced this issue

2026-05-17 22:43:36 +02:00

docs(specs): secrets-pipeline-foundation-v0 prebuild (#237) #335

claude referenced this issue

2026-05-17 22:43:42 +02:00

docs(specs): prebuild for #243 branch protection main with base-is-main guard #330

claude referenced this issue from a commit

2026-05-17 23:02:43 +02:00

prompts(forks): v0.1 dispatch template with worktree isolation (8 retry prebuilds)

claude referenced this issue

2026-05-17 23:03:11 +02:00

prompts(forks): v0.1 dispatch template with worktree isolation (8 retry prebuilds) #356

claude referenced this issue from a commit

2026-05-18 08:16:30 +02:00

docs(specs): #85 bug prebuild — canary PR body in reviewer context

claude referenced this issue

2026-05-18 08:16:51 +02:00

docs(specs): #85 bug prebuild — canary PR body in reviewer context #363

pdurlej commented

2026-05-18 16:59:10 +02:00

Owner

Codex live audit note — 2026-05-18 16:56 CEST

This issue is valid, but current live canary cannot prove the fix yet.

Verified state today:

canary-required.yml still says SCAFFOLD / READINESS ONLY.
canary job still runs on ubuntu-22.04, not canary-host.
/data/platformctl/canary.env is missing and readiness is ready=false.
Green canary-required checks are currently readiness/scaffold success, not evidence that reviewer context included the PR body.

Acceptance for this issue should include a post-activation smoke where real platformctl.tools.run_review produces decision_packet.json, and the packet/reviewer input evidence confirms PR body text was included.

## Codex live audit note — 2026-05-18 16:56 CEST This issue is valid, but current live canary cannot prove the fix yet. Verified state today: - `canary-required.yml` still says `SCAFFOLD / READINESS ONLY`. - `canary` job still runs on `ubuntu-22.04`, not `canary-host`. - `/data/platformctl/canary.env` is missing and readiness is `ready=false`. - Green `canary-required` checks are currently readiness/scaffold success, not evidence that reviewer context included the PR body. Acceptance for this issue should include a post-activation smoke where real `platformctl.tools.run_review` produces `decision_packet.json`, and the packet/reviewer input evidence confirms PR body text was included.

codex added this to the 06 - Agent execution and CI governance milestone

2026-05-19 08:36:24 +02:00

pdurlej referenced this issue from a commit

2026-05-23 09:19:10 +02:00

Merge pull request 'docs(specs): #85 bug prebuild — canary PR body in reviewer context' (#363) from claude/fork-C1-canary-pr-body-context-bug into main

codex referenced this issue from a pull request that will close it,

2026-05-24 21:12:18 +02:00

fix(canary): include PR body in reviewer context #449

pdurlej closed this issue

2026-05-24 21:12:45 +02:00

codex referenced this issue

2026-06-10 23:39:51 +02:00