Skip to content

Update for standing priority #1905#1932

Open
svelderrainruiz wants to merge 1 commit into
issue/upstream-1905-loop-event-execution-topologyfrom
issue/upstream-1905-loop-topology-runbook-feed
Open

Update for standing priority #1905#1932
svelderrainruiz wants to merge 1 commit into
issue/upstream-1905-loop-event-execution-topologyfrom
issue/upstream-1905-loop-topology-runbook-feed

Conversation

@svelderrainruiz
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Delivers issue #1905 into issue/upstream-1905-loop-event-execution-topology using the standard automation PR helper.

Agent Metadata (required for automation-authored PRs)

  • Agent-ID: agent/copilot-codex-a
  • Operator: @svelderrainruiz
  • Reviewer-Required: @svelderrainruiz
  • Emergency-Bypass-Label: AllowCIBypass

Keep this block for automation-authored PRs. Human-authored PRs should switch to
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/human-change.md or delete this section before requesting review.

Change Surface

  • Primary issue or standing-priority context: [runner]: formalize opt-in self-hosted LV32/NI capability contract #1905
  • Issue URL: (not supplied)
  • Files, tools, workflows, or policies touched: Helper-driven PR creation path for issue/upstream-1905-loop-topology-runbook-feed.
  • Cross-repo or external-consumer impact: None expected at PR creation time.
  • Required checks, merge-queue behavior, or approval flows affected: Standard issue/upstream-1905-loop-event-execution-topology branch protections and required checks apply.

Validation Evidence

  • Commands run:
    • None yet; this body was generated during PR creation.
  • Key artifacts, logs, or workflow runs:
    • None yet.
  • Risk-based checks not run:
    • Validation is deferred until implementation commits land on the branch.

Risks and Follow-ups

  • Residual risks: This body should be refreshed if the branch scope changes materially before merge.
  • Follow-up issues or deferred work: None at PR creation time.
  • Deployment, approval, or rollback notes: Standard PR review and required-check flow.

Reviewer Focus

  • Please verify: issue linkage, branch/base selection, and metadata routing are correct.
  • Areas where the reasoning is subtle: None at PR creation time.
  • Manual spot checks requested: None.

Closes #1905

@svelderrainruiz svelderrainruiz marked this pull request as ready for review March 24, 2026 12:40
@svelderrainruiz svelderrainruiz enabled auto-merge (squash) March 24, 2026 12:40
@svelderrainruiz
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Promoted this stacked slice for #1905.

Summary:

  • the Integration Runbook Loop phase now consumes the loop final-status topology instead of treating the loop as a black box
  • the targeted runbook test proves executionTopology lands in Loop phase details from a stubbed loop final-status artifact

Validation:

  • Invoke-Pester -Path tests/IntegrationRunbook.Tests.ps1 -FullNameFilter ''*projects loop execution topology from the loop final status into Loop phase details'' -Output Detailed
  • node tools/npm/run-script.mjs docs:manifest:validate
  • git diff --check

Honest note:

  • the full tests/IntegrationRunbook.Tests.ps1 suite still runs longer than the practical host timeout budget on this machine, so the proof here is intentionally targeted to the changed seam.

Queue state:

  • auto-merge enabled
  • merge-sync refreshed after PR creation

Budget hook: blended lower bound $0.020100; operator $0.000000 of $50000.000000 cap (remaining >=$50000.000000); window invoice-turn-2026-03-HQ1VJLMV-0027 spent $0.020100 remaining $399.979900; turns 1 total (0 live, 0 background); 1 turn(s) still pending labor timing; calibration reserve $100.000000 across 1 held window(s). Receipt: tests/results/_agent/cost/github-comment-budget-hook.json.

@svelderrainruiz svelderrainruiz force-pushed the issue/upstream-1905-loop-event-execution-topology branch from 516d4ab to 01d3888 Compare March 24, 2026 14:13
@svelderrainruiz svelderrainruiz force-pushed the issue/upstream-1905-loop-topology-runbook-feed branch from 5725071 to 04d146c Compare March 24, 2026 14:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant