docs: establish live product and technical gap baseline - #1163
docs: establish live product and technical gap baseline#1163seonghobae wants to merge 89 commits into
Conversation
|
Current-head review request for exact commit |
|
Important
This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars. ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
Live baseline refreshed at exact head 620fb4f: current PR inventory now records #1158=e2c00317, #1155=5ef1fc6b, #1156=f19549cd, #1146=38fbf9fc, and the baseline PR itself=1e16f9fb. The table remains observational evidence only; merge decisions still require current-head Checks, independent review, and ruleset verification. @opencode-agent please review this exact head. |
|
Baseline header and G-04 are refreshed to the live 99-open-PR snapshot at exact head 89e579c; table membership was checked against the full live inventory. |
Exact-head renewal after protected-main advancement
A local actionlint pass also exposed an existing base-main defect in |
Correction to the local actionlint noteThe Reference: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-actions/contexts#job-context |
|
Exact-head repair verification: |
|
Current-head review refresh (2026-08-21):
|
|
Current-head revalidation for the refreshed baseline:
This remains unmergeable by protected policy until an independent current-head approval and terminal required Checks exist. Duplicate #1193 was closed and is not a second merge path. |
![devin-ai-integration[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/811515?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Exact-head review disposition
|
Exact-head review disposition
The live product/technical gap baseline was refreshed from the GitHub REST inventory observed on 2026-08-21: protected Local exact-head evidence for
Hosted state for the same exact head: Python 3.10 contract, Python 3.14 exact contract/complete coverage, and exact-head policy have succeeded; security, review-provider, workflow bootstrap, and other required runs remain queued (exact-head path policy was still in progress at observation). No formal APPROVED review exists for this exact head; prior bot comments are on predecessor commits. This is not a D1-D5 deadlock finding, and no bypass or force merge is authorized. Please review this exact head only and publish substantive findings or approval after the current Checks settle. |
Exact-head review disposition
|
Current-head verification update
|
|
Exact-head audit update\n\nObserved hosted exact-head-path-policy failure on the prior head: the scheduler contract test still expected the former repository-dispatch run-id scope and shorter cancellation expression. The hosted pip lock also remained on pip 26.1.2.\n\nRoot-cause fix: updated the hash-locked CI dependency to pip 26.2.1 with both package hashes and aligned both scheduler assertions with the current repository-dispatch and orphaned workflow-run scopes.\n\nExact head: 1a568aa\nExact base: fce028b\nLocal verification: pip-audit clean; 55 technical-gap/scheduler tests passed; shell syntax and diff checks passed.\nHosted required checks and exact-head approval remain pending; decision remains WAIT_AND_REMEDIATE. |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
|
||
| ## [Unreleased] | ||
|
|
||
| - Documented the live product and technical gap baseline, current open-PR inventory, ownership boundaries, acceptance criteria, and buyer next-action loop in `docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 Info: CHANGELOG entry sits outside any category heading
The added bullet sits directly under ## [Unreleased], before the ### Added subheading, while every other entry lives under a Keep-a-Changelog category (Added/Changed/Fixed/Security/Documentation). No contract test enforces this, so it is a formatting inconsistency only.
Was this helpful? React with 👍 or 👎 to provide feedback.
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode could not approve from deterministic current-head evidence because GitHub Checks have failed.
Findings
1. HIGH Current-head GitHub Checks - Fix failed required checks before approval
- Problem: Failed same-head checks remain for
495ec011d5736a5619da89b715db1aae1f92e960. - Root cause: The model-unavailable evidence fallback is allowed only when peer GitHub Checks are complete and clean.
- Fix: Read and fix the failed check logs below, then rerun the current-head checks.
- Regression test: Keep the model-unavailable fallback gated on an empty failed-check rollup.
Failed checks:
- CodeQL PR/CodeQL compatibility analysis (actions): CANCELLED (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533049992/job/96928883788)
- CodeQL PR/CodeQL compatibility analysis (python): CANCELLED (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533049992/job/96928883747)
- CodeQL PR/CodeQL merge preview (actions): CANCELLED (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533049992/job/96928883787)
- CodeQL PR/CodeQL merge preview (python): CANCELLED (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533049992/job/96928883719)
- CodeQL compatibility analysis (actions) check run: cancelled (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533049992/job/96928883788)
- CodeQL compatibility analysis (python) check run: cancelled (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533049992/job/96928883747)
- CodeQL merge preview (actions) check run: cancelled (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533049992/job/96928883787)
- CodeQL merge preview (python) check run: cancelled (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533049992/job/96928883719)
- OpenCode Rust Coverage Toolchain Quality CI/quality: FAILURE (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533050202/job/96928742955)
- Python Security/pip-audit (Python dependency audit): CANCELLED (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533050098/job/96928784214)
- Strix Changed Path Quality CI/exact-head-path-policy: CANCELLED (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533050282/job/96928743315)
- exact-head-path-policy check run: cancelled (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533050282/job/96928743315)
- pip-audit (Python dependency audit) check run: cancelled (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533050098/job/96928784214)
- quality check run: failure (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32533050202/job/96928742955)
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Test: test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode could not approve from deterministic current-head evidence because GitHub Checks have failed. Findings1. HIGH Current-head GitHub Checks - Fix failed required checks before approval
Failed checks:
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Test: test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
|
1 participant
Purpose
Create the buyer-facing product and technical gap baseline that turns current evidence into reviewable, stackable work for the naruon ecosystem and central
.githubcontrol plane.Exact current identity
7a2a51e560adc2e1f2f7020702fdc5802ca62b58;main;731af58e954901c4f1cc853231c592abb1eaf617;The inventory in
docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.mdis an observational snapshot captured on 2026-08-21. It is not merge, approval, or current-PR evidence. Every future loop must re-read live repository, base/head, review, thread, Checks, and ruleset state.Buyer and implementation boundary
N/A (UI scope 없음); UI repositories must record real Figma File IDs, Storybook inventory, design tokens, and interaction/i18n evidence in their own ADRs.Exact-head verification
Local verification on
7a2a51e560adc2e1f2f7020702fdc5802ca62b58:uv run pytest --import-mode=importlib -q tests/test_product_technical_gap_baseline.py: 3 passed;git diff --check: passed;Hosted and review state
For exact head
7a2a51e5:Normal merge remains blocked by non-terminal hosted security/supply-chain gates and missing independent approval. This documentation PR is not a D1-D6 control-plane deadlock and is not eligible for guarded force merge.
Acceptance gate
Merge only after all required exact-head Checks are terminal-success, current findings/threads are resolved, an independent current-head approval exists, and live branch protection permits normal integration. After merge, the next action is to select the highest-leverage live Gap ID and implement it in the owning product repository, reusing the baseline only as a roadmap—not as stale merge evidence.