[vincentkoc]

Adds a pinned development repair for incomplete Fusion adviser responses and records a controlled cheap/strong/handoff comparison. All three solved this case; cheap-only was fastest and least expensive, so the result does not support a fusion quality gain.

Verification: original and reference pass three visible tests; original fails 11 of 26 acceptance checks and reference passes all 26 without skips. The exact manifest matches the qualified receipt. Existing workload/local-runner tests: 31 passed, three optional Docker tests skipped. Independent source review found no actionable P0–P2 issues. The 28-call controlled run settled all usage; results report agent time separately from cold grading.

Deployment: none. No routing defaults change. Remaining risk: one coordinator-selected development task cannot establish generalization or production readiness.

[clawsweeper]

🦞👀
ClawSweeper picked this up.

Pull request received. I will update this pull request when review starts.

ClawSweeper review complete

ClawSweeper finished reviewing this revision. The review result is being finalized.

View the workflow run.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs changes before merge.

What this changes

Adds a pinned Fusion adviser-completion repair workload and documents a cheap-model, strong-model, and handoff comparison.

Example: Benchmarking an adviser response with finish_reason="length" and usable text.

• Before: The corpus has no dedicated pinned task for repairing acceptance of incomplete adviser text.
• After: The new development task requires rejecting that text while preserving usage accounting and existing fallback behavior.

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🦐 gold shrimp (3/6)	Focused and source-consistent coverage with no identified defect; reported benchmark measurements were not independently verified, and qualification checks remain in progress.
Proof confidence	🦐 gold shrimp (3/6)	Shipped-entry-point proof is unnecessary for this benchmark-data and documentation change; qualification and controlled-run measurements are author-reported without linked raw receipts.
Patch quality	🐚 platinum hermit (4/6)	No actionable review findings were identified.

Product

Kind: Test only · Worth it: Yes · Fix scope: Complete
User problem: Benchmark authors need a repeatable repair task for incomplete adviser responses without overstating model-allocation benefits.
Reason: The maintainer-authored direction extends an established corpus with a concrete failure and preservation contract at small maintenance cost.

Merge readiness

⛔ Needs changes before merge - 1 item remains

Keep open: this maintainer-authored draft adds a focused benchmark task absent from main, with appropriately limited conclusions and no actionable correctness findings.

Priority: P3
Reviewed head: 7443d3ed095f8fc0c3f63e81a0e44a407903cef9

Before merge

• Complete next step - After fix(fusion): reject incomplete adviser drafts #1036 merges, retarget this PR to main and mark it ready when the draft dependency is resolved.

Findings

None.

Agent review details

How this fits together

The offline Fusion benchmark loads pinned repository revisions, exposes permitted source and visible tests to repair agents, and evaluates their edits against separate acceptance tests.

flowchart LR
  A[Pinned workload manifest] --> B[Qualification runner]
  B --> C[Isolated repair agent]
  C --> D[Permitted source edits]
  D --> E[Acceptance verifier]
  E --> F[Benchmark results]

Loading

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Land the runtime dependency, then retain this focused development workload with its explicitly limited benchmark conclusions.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

This PR adds benchmark coverage; the underlying incomplete-adviser path is source-verifiable on main and is repaired separately.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

The manifest reuses existing qualification and isolation owners, limits edits to the collector, and avoids adding benchmark machinery or changing routing policy.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning medium; reviewed against ee1626510f59.

Testing

Proof path: none.

Security

None.

Evidence

What I checked:

• Introduced scope: The pinned introduction diff adds only the workload manifest and a documentation section; it changes no runtime code, dependencies, defaults, or storage. (benchmarks/fusion/adviser-completion-workloads.json:1, 7443d3ed095f)
• Pinned task fits the existing contract: The oracle's parent is exactly the declared base. Qualification already checks original visible tests, reference compatibility, failing baseline acceptance, and passing repaired acceptance; the existing workflow discovers every bundled workloads.json manifest. (scripts/fusion-workloads.mjs:224, 597020f6aea0)
• Acceptance coverage matches the task: The pinned acceptance suite includes eleven rejection cases, successful text-part preservation, usage accounting, concurrent collection, bounded reads, and response cleanup; combined with the three visible strategy tests, its structure matches the documented 26 checks. (worker/test/fusion.test.mjs, 597020f6aea0)
• Runtime dependency remains separate: fix(fusion): reject incomplete adviser drafts #1036 remains open and owns the runtime repair; this draft explicitly targets its branch and plans to retarget after it lands. (4fd1d16c15e1)
• Conservative interpretation of results: The documentation identifies a selected development task, reports success for all three arms, and expressly rejects claims of a Fusion quality gain, generalization, or production readiness. (docs/fusion-small-models.md:907, 7443d3ed095f)
• Feature ownership history: Merged history consistently identifies vincentkoc across benchmark creation, workload additions, qualification, handoff controls, and latency accounting. Following the documentation history eventually encountered an unavailable old blob; the inspected merged history establishes current area contribution without establishing the earliest introduction. (docs/fusion-small-models.md:886, ee1626510f59)

Likely related people:

• Vincent Koc: Raw commit 1d05a34 adds docs/fusion-small-models.md:878 relative to its recorded parents. This identifies author metadata, not feature responsibility or a PR merger. (role: source-line author; confidence: high; commits: 1d05a345bbea; files: docs/fusion-small-models.md)

Preflight source

Source unknown. Source comparison at the observed PR snapshot only. Completion is self-reported; body, policy, tests, execution, and report bytes are not verified.

Labels

Label changes:

• add P3: This is offline benchmark coverage and documentation with no production behavior change.
• add rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Overall readiness is 🦐 gold shrimp; proof is 🦐 gold shrimp and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• add status: ⏳ waiting on author: ClawSweeper has contributor-facing work open and is waiting for author action.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is offline benchmark coverage and documentation with no production behavior change.
• rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Overall readiness is 🦐 gold shrimp; proof is 🦐 gold shrimp and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: ⏳ waiting on author: ClawSweeper has contributor-facing work open and is waiting for author action.

Rating scale

6/6 🦀 challenger crab · 5/6 🦞 diamond lobster · 4/6 🐚 platinum hermit · 3/6 🦐 gold shrimp · 2/6 🦪 silver shellfish · 1/6 🧂 unranked krab. Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality; ✨ marks media proof (a screenshot, video, or linked artifact) that directly shows the changed behavior.

Workflow

ClawSweeper edits this one comment on every review. Comment @clawsweeper re-review for a fresh review only. Repair and merge execution lanes are retired.

Reviewed November 13, 2026, 11:44 AM ET / 16:44 UTC.