Skip to content

fix(tools): remove unsafe phishing detector - #1301

Draft
seonghobae wants to merge 7 commits into
fix/fail-closed-tool-mutationsfrom
fix/remove-unsafe-phishing-detector
Draft

fix(tools): remove unsafe phishing detector#1301
seonghobae wants to merge 7 commits into
fix/fail-closed-tool-mutationsfrom
fix/remove-unsafe-phishing-detector

Conversation

@seonghobae

@seonghobae seonghobae commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Customer and safety outcome

Remove the built-in spam_phishing_detector from the signed-session tool catalog/detail/execute paths. Those paths return 404 Tool not found; there is no heuristic, keyword, domain-suffix, URL-fragment, cached, boolean-benign, or invented risk-score fallback. #1300's mutation tombstones remain unchanged.

Current stacked authority

  • protected root: develop@042b0c70531b229af3acbd0421a2f23098d848b3
  • direct parent: fix(tools): fail closed on unsafe global tool mutations #1300 fix/fail-closed-tool-mutations@0833fcbdba583b3c508620e5a09ccca060ab40e6
  • exact head: ae299ce9287893fce4046e2b015cfe4dba9067c4
  • lifecycle: Draft / mergeable / parent prerequisite unresolved / exact-head hosted evidence and approval required
  • effective child files: CHANGELOG.md, backend/api/tools.py, backend/tests/test_tools_api.py

Non-force parent restack

The live #1300 parent advanced from e3485b4d... to 0833fcbd... solely to return AGENTS.md ownership to the canonical #1549#1564#1566 documentation lane. This child had already adopted the preceding parent at 050ee158.... Commit ae299ce... therefore performs a normal two-parent merge with the new #1300 head and resolves the only new parent delta by taking the parent's AGENTS.md blob. No child product delta was discarded.

The result is the intended single-writer boundary: this PR no longer changes AGENTS.md; its phishing-removal delta is three files while #1300 remains the direct parent. Predecessor checks/reviews do not transfer.

Security contract

The removed handler treated fixed English substrings, domain suffixes, and URL fragments as authoritative phishing evidence without immutable source provenance, authenticated-message evidence, URL/attachment reputation, calibrated validation, uncertainty, or typed unknown. Safe behavior is absence until a real source-bound assessment contract exists.

On clean startup:

  • GET /api/tools omits spam_phishing_detector;
  • GET /api/tools/spam_phishing_detector returns 404 {"detail":"Tool not found"};
  • POST /api/tools/spam_phishing_detector/execute returns the same 404;
  • no provider, lexical, cached, boolean-benign, or risk-score fallback is installed.

Any future security assessment needs server-authoritative immutable source evidence, authenticated-message and URL/attachment signals, versioned provider/model provenance, calibrated validation, typed assessed/unknown/error states, tenant isolation, redaction, and fail-closed provider errors. Automated quarantine or deletion remains a separate authorized action contract.

Verification boundary

The new head invalidates all predecessor local/hosted checks and reviews. Regenerate current-head repository and organization required evidence after the stacked prerequisite chain is executable; do not use a dummy commit, self-approval, bypass, or predecessor status transfer.

Successor boundary

#1302 remains the dependent canned-source-derived-tools removal. It must adopt this exact parent non-force and preserve the same no-parallel-AGENTS.md rule before promotion. Do not close either PR merely to reduce count.

Merge boundary

Keep Draft until #1300 and its #1565 prerequisite are protected-integrated or completely succeeded, this unchanged final head has every then-live required check terminal-success, all valid findings/threads are resolved, and qualifying post-last-push independent approval exists. No force-push, destructive rebase, self-approval, admin bypass, review dismissal/fabrication, gate weakening, dummy/no-op requeue commit, or predecessor-evidence transfer.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Important

Draft PR not reviewed

Draft PRs are not automatically reviewed by default.

  • Trigger a manual review

To automatically review draft PRs, update your CodeRabbit configuration:

reviews:
  auto_review:
    drafts: true

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.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head e8a778c5d9d93306699cdb36f2ff430d7ba81f6b.

  • Head SHA: e8a778c5d9d93306699cdb36f2ff430d7ba81f6b

  • Workflow run: 31701648731

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Loading

@opencode-agent

opencode-agent Bot commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff
  • Workflow run: 31939080178
  • Workflow attempt: 1
  • Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff.

  • Head SHA: 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff

  • Workflow run: 31939080178

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Loading

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PR governance metadata gate is not ready for 646a2401de35529425163fdefa7ad5e6355c349f:

  • Draft PR: merge automation is paused.
  • Review decision is CHANGES_REQUESTED; address requested changes before merge.

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff.

  • Head SHA: 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff

  • Workflow run: 31884556668

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff.

  • Head SHA: 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff

  • Workflow run: 31930309353

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff.

  • Head SHA: 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff

  • Workflow run: 31931454282

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff.

  • Head SHA: 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff

  • Workflow run: 31933282779

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff.

  • Head SHA: 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff

  • Workflow run: 31935583404

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff.

  • Head SHA: 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff

  • Workflow run: 31936818459

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff.

  • Head SHA: 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff

  • Workflow run: 31937930755

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff.

  • Head SHA: 39a3f56aff4f72089612bea3c10d88ba46e45fff

  • Workflow run: 31939080178

  • 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 (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Backend (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Loading

… onto live #1300

Co-authored-by: Seongho Bae <seonghobae@users.noreply.github.com>
@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@coderabbitai review

Please review the unchanged exact current head 646a2401de35529425163fdefa7ad5e6355c349f (normal merge of live parent #1300 67dbfddb). Predecessor 39a3f56a evidence does not transfer. Local tools tests: 65 passed. Keep Draft. This comment is not an approval.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@seonghobae I will review the current PR head 646a2401de35529425163fdefa7ad5e6355c349f. The PR remains Draft.

⚠️ Action not completed

Review rate limited.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

cursor Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 17, 2026
…onto live #1301

Co-authored-by: Seongho Bae <seonghobae@users.noreply.github.com>
@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot added priority: medium Normal-priority or P2 work status: draft Draft pull request type: bug Defect or incorrect behavior labels Aug 22, 2026
@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Exact head 050ee1588090952c2c9058c4cb596851ee35cad7를 repaired parent #1300(e3485b4dfed763cdcd846c7894dc5c5f69e445e0)에 ordinary merge로 non-force restack하고 base를 fix/fail-closed-tool-mutations로 retarget했습니다. 고유 child delta는 AGENTS.md, CHANGELOG.md, tools API, tools tests의 4파일입니다.

현재 parent 계약을 포함한 focused suite 67개가 -W error로 통과했고 Ruff와 diff check도 통과했습니다. #1300과 #1565가 보호 병합될 때까지 Draft를 유지하며 과거 head의 review/check 증거는 승계하지 않습니다.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review Completed 2026-09-05T05:45:17.602971Z ae299ce New commits
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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@seonghobae
seonghobae marked this pull request as draft September 5, 2026 05:42
@seonghobae seonghobae added the bug Something isn't working label Sep 7, 2026 — with ChatGPT Codex Connector
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bug Something isn't working priority: medium Normal-priority or P2 work status: draft Draft pull request type: bug Defect or incorrect behavior

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants