docs: replay method citations on current review workflow - #1011
Conversation
Add method pages and ADRs 0015-0016 for the shipped observed-score delta-plot DIF screen and Hunter MM Bradley-Terry ranking estimators. Expand ADR-0001/0005/0006/0007 with verified DOIs and AERA/APA/NCME 2014. Keep MH/logistic/SIBTEST citations and do not treat those methods, or NIST/OWASP, as the delta-plot basis. Co-authored-by: Seongho Bae <seonghobae@users.noreply.github.com>
Keep main's ADR-0015 (multi-item IRT fit boundary). Move the Angoff delta-plot and Bradley-Terry decisions to ADR-0016 and ADR-0017 so both decision records remain indexed. Co-authored-by: Seongho Bae <seonghobae@users.noreply.github.com>
bratt_mm rejects tie-free data rather than redirecting; delta-plot drops NaN per item/group instead of requiring a complete matrix; Angoff 1972 is an APA meeting presentation. Co-authored-by: Seongho Bae <seonghobae@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Important Review skippedAuto incremental reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis documentation-only change records implemented MLSIRM/MLS2PLM, Angoff delta-plot DIF, and Bradley–Terry MM/BRATT methods. It adds ADRs, research citations, usage documentation, package indexes, maturity records, and traceability updates. ChangesImplemented method documentation
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Merge Risk: 🟡 Moderate · up to The documentation currently misstates how supported missing values are handled, which could lead users to reject valid inputs; this wording should be corrected before merging. A separate minor citation-year correction is also needed. Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 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 |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review Please independently review exact current head |
![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 cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head5472319a71fd20df19d9f8d27321e301d69fc854. -
Head SHA:
5472319a71fd20df19d9f8d27321e301d69fc854 -
Workflow run: 32213335032
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file: README.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: README.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (19 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (19 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass. Review outcome1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
Coverage evidenceCoverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence. Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file: README.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: README.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (19 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (19 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head5472319a71fd20df19d9f8d27321e301d69fc854. -
Head SHA:
5472319a71fd20df19d9f8d27321e301d69fc854 -
Workflow run: 32217712201
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file: README.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: README.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (19 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (19 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
|
@opencode-agent review Fresh re-review request: ContextualWisdomLab/.github#1136 has merged, fixing the central Generated by Claude Code |
|
@opencode-agent Please re-review the unchanged current exact head |
|
@opencode-agent Please re-review unchanged exact head |
|
@opencode-agent review Re-dispatch unchanged exact head |
|
@opencode-agent review Please re-review exact current head |
|
Current-head review for 5472319: required checks are terminal-success on this exact head. Existing formal review state predates the current evidence or was tied to an earlier coverage-evidence attempt; no source failure is shown. Please reacquire approval against this exact head. @opencode-agent review @cwl-noema-review review |
|
@opencode-agent Please perform a review-only formal review of exact current PR head |
|
Current-head review for 5472319: the two CodeRabbit findings are already resolved in the current diff. The Uto citation is 2023 in docs/adr/0007-multilevel-multiple-membership-temporal.md, and ADR-0016 explicitly documents NaN dropping per item and group, the separate missing-data likelihood path, and the empty item-group error. No additional source edit is justified. Current hosted checks are successful; normal squash auto-merge is now armed and remains subject to the independent formal review gate. |
|
Verified the two actionable findings against exact current head 5472319: Uto is already cited as 2023 in ADR-0007, and ADR-0016 already documents per-item/per-group NaN dropping, the separate missing-data likelihood path, and the empty item-group error. No further source edit is justified. Please re-review this unchanged current head under the repaired central coverage contract; protected auto-merge remains gate-controlled. @opencode-agent review @cwl-noema-review review |
|
Scheduled review-feedback autofix for this PR head.
|
|
Scheduled review-feedback autofix for this PR head.
|
|
Scheduled review-feedback autofix for this PR head.
|
|
Scheduled review-feedback autofix for this PR head.
|
opencode-agent
Bot
added
area: ci-cd
![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.
3 participants
Supersedes #948 and keeps this lane documentation-only; no estimator, formula, API, or psychometric arithmetic changes.
Current exact head
5472319a71fd20df19d9f8d27321e301d69fc854against protectedmain@04d0bc21a2a20693bcf16108cd76d394fe844d23.Reviewed corrections
delta_plotmissingness contract: the observed-score kernel may dropNaNcells per item/group; only a missing-data likelihood DIF model remains separate; an item-group with no observed cells still errors.The predecessor OpenCode
CHANGES_REQUESTEDon #948 belongs to older central coverage evidence and is not transferred as source approval. Fresh exact-head CI/security/review evidence for5472319...is regenerating; auto-merge is enabled but protection/independent approval remains authoritative.