Repository navigation
docs(limits): describe how to design admission recovery - #6368
Conversation
Merged obligation candidates called uniqueBy, which is not defined, so the project did not typecheck. String ids already use uniqueSorted. Co-authored-by: morluto <morluto@users.noreply.github.com>
Add a short contributor guide for named defaults, settings, recovery text, and the agent recovery ladder, and mirror that ladder into the authored skill. Co-authored-by: morluto <morluto@users.noreply.github.com>
systemLinuxHopperInstallHost now requires the caller's distribution reader. The Linux install tests still passed only the environment, so typecheck failed. Co-authored-by: morluto <morluto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: morluto <morluto@users.noreply.github.com>
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. |
 [Medium impact] The PR appears safe to merge; no actionable issues were found. SummaryAdds a contributor guide for admission limits and recovery.
The review used the full PR diff because the previous and current commits have different merge bases with the supplied target. No actionable correctness, security, or repository-rule violations were found. No previous review threads were supplied. Builds and tests were not rerun. Reviews (3) · Last reviewed commit: "docs: link repository experiments outsid..." · Reviewed by Greptile |
Source and portable CI failed on fixtures that still described the previous pcap client identity, legacy storage fingerprints, and the old regex deadline sentence. Co-authored-by: morluto <morluto@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Codex usage limits have been reached for code reviews. Please check with the admins of this repo to increase the limits by adding credits. |
![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: d2761c850e
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".
| - `cleanup_incomplete`, or retained cleanup owners in the error details: retry | ||
| that exact cleanup owner. Do not start new work that needs those resources | ||
| until that owner confirms release. Repeating the original call is not that | ||
| retry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For target-free workflows backed by ArtifactResourceScope, such as inspect_wasm_artifact, details.resources contains descriptive labels rather than callable cleanup owners, and invoking the original tool again is precisely what causes ArtifactResourceScope.run to retry retained cleanup before admitting the operation. This guidance therefore gives the agent no callable recovery action while explicitly forbidding the available one, potentially leaving the session blocked after cleanup_incomplete; direct callers to the returned remediation or the operation-specific cleanup path instead.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L19-L19
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Summary
Part of #6176; related to #5910. Add a contributor guide for admission ceilings, configurable headroom and recovery, with examples from regex deadlines and MCP response budgets. Link it from the contribution guide, docs index, tool-design guide and sidebar. Mirror the recovery ladder into the authored investigation skill.
Merged main
42e1a17d6. Earlier compilation and fixture repairs in this branch are now on main through #4642 and #6375; conflict resolution retains main's current tests, including structured deadline diagnostics and exact search recovery. The PR diff contains documentation and authored-skill changes only. Repository experiment links in seven existing pages now point to their GitHub files at pinned commit42e1a17d6, including three script links affected by the same site-root mismatch. All ten targets were verified at that commit. No production behavior or target authority changes; a maintainer scope decision is not applicable.Validation
On Node 24.18.0, recovery-message tests passed (3 tests),
npm run docs:checkpassed (including 9 README consistency tests), andnpm run check:ci:fastpassed all five tasks, including formatting, typecheck and built lint.After correcting the repository artifact links,
npm run docs:buildpasses, including page rendering and its dead-link check.npm run docs:checkand formatting of all seven corrected pages also pass. Hosted checks are pending; real-provider workflows and the separate website link audit were not run.Author readiness
Human owner: @morluto
Before merge
type(scope): outcome.