perf(routing): interpolate psychometric warm starts - #1061
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <me@seonghobae.me>
Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <me@seonghobae.me>
Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <me@seonghobae.me>
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Team Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
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 |
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <me@seonghobae.me>
Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <me@seonghobae.me>
Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <me@seonghobae.me>
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: f9bb820c41
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <me@seonghobae.me>
Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <me@seonghobae.me>
Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <me@seonghobae.me>
Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <me@seonghobae.me>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: cbe12d4792
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <me@seonghobae.me>
PR #1067 has exactly the same tree as #1058, already an ancestor of #1064. Preserve both histories and the complete #1064 tree without reapplying identical cherry-picked changes. The successor update remains a fast-forward. Source tree: 8735f95 Predecessors: #1058, #1059, #1061, #1062, #1064. No predecessor is closed before protected delivery and delta verification. Signed-off-by: Seongho Bae <me@seonghobae.me>
![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 reviewed the current-head product diff. Coverage is a separate gate.
Changed files
CHANGELOG.md— repository behaviorcontextual_orchestrator/psychometric_routing.py— Python module behaviordocs/doctoring/measured-routing-evidence.md— operator or user guidancedocs/papers/README.md— operator or user guidancedocs/planning/adrs/0034-anti-heuristic-routing-evidence.md— operator or user guidancedocs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md— operator or user guidancescripts/benchmark_psychometric_heldout.py— Python module behaviortests/test_psychometric_routing.py— regression suite
Changed behavior
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Repository file: CHANGELOG.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Repository file: CHANGELOG.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Python: psychometric_routing.py (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["Python module behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Python: psychometric_routing.py (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["pytest plus coverage"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs: measured-routing-evidence.md (4 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs: measured-routing-evidence.md (4 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
Evidence --> S4["Test: test_psychometric_routing.py"]
S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test: test_psychometric_routing.py"]
R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
Findings
No source-backed product finding is synthesized from the coverage gate. A coverage miss belongs in the status comment.
- Head SHA:
c5a09630b4473d6981f3fbc5c555fbbcd9406a74 - Workflow run: 33898306468
- Workflow attempt: 1
- Coverage gate:
failure
Review outcome
Coverage is a gate, not the review. This body reviews the changed product files.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Repository file: CHANGELOG.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Repository file: CHANGELOG.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Python: psychometric_routing.py (2 files)"]
S2 --> I2["Python module behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Python: psychometric_routing.py (2 files)"]
R2 --> V2["pytest plus coverage"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs: measured-routing-evidence.md (4 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs: measured-routing-evidence.md (4 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
Evidence --> S4["Test: test_psychometric_routing.py"]
S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test: test_psychometric_routing.py"]
R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Coverage evidence did not pass, so approval is blocked. The formal pull-request review is the source-backed diff review, not this status comment. |
seonghobae
added
maintenance
priority: medium
ChatGPT Codex Connector
1 participant
Successor tracking
The complete delta at this PR's head
c5a09630b4473d6981f3fbc5c555fbbcd9406a74is preserved in trusted-branch successor #1067 at1481c595dc1d16e7bf4b65addaf0bd30322cf2b8. Commit ancestry and tree equality are recorded indocs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md. Review and required-workflow integration continue there. This PR remains open until protected delivery and a fresh full-delta audit; later changes here must also be carried forward.Summary
Measured result
24 train/24 held-out contexts, four models:
0.1438369123->0.1418346845(1.39% lower)0.4525311878->0.44757843030.0024259478->0.0Expected Brier includes Bernoulli outcome variance. This is synthetic warm-start evidence, not buyer-held-out accuracy or production latency. Defaults remain unchanged.
Stack and exact-head verification
99efa19ec5a096303399 passed, 2 skipped0.1418346845git diff --checkBoth review findings are fixed and resolved.