Skip to content
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion knowledge/repos/vllm-omni/review/guides/_index.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ sources: []
|---|---|
| 按 PR 描述先路由到精确 owner/model 代码地图,再用 changed files 校验范围 | [PR intent maintainer routing](maintainer-pattern-routing.md) |
| 审查模型适配 PR 的完整性 | [model adaptation guardrails](model-adaptation-guardrails.md) |
| Strict 审查注入的触发式检查单(streaming 生命周期、平台默认值影响面、依赖下界、CI marker 选择、测试有效性) | [strict review checklist](strict-review-checklist.md) |
| Strict 审查注入的触发式检查单(streaming 生命周期、平台默认值影响面、依赖下界、CI marker 选择、测试有效性、bugfix 回归覆盖) | [strict review checklist](strict-review-checklist.md) |
| 判断新模型验证是否证明语义正确 | [model validation](model-validation.md) |
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
---
title: "Strict 审查触发式检查单"
created: 2026-08-12
updated: 2026-08-15
updated: 2026-08-25
type: guide
tags: [vllm-omni, review]
sources: []
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -114,6 +114,15 @@ Train-distilled trigger→check lines (20-PR campaign + teacher traces
semantic merge conflict here (double resample) that invalidates the PR's
own WER numbers; on any merge commit, re-verify reported numbers at HEAD.

## Bugfix PR regression coverage

Only when the PR is a bugfix (title/labels/linked issue): demand a regression
test pinning the ORIGINAL failure path — failing before the fix, matching the
root cause, not a happy path (a test that cannot fail counts as missing).
Check same-class entrypoints and boundaries; an accepted gap must state reason
and residual risk. Conclude by naming the covering test/case or filing an
Comment on lines +119 to +123

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P1 Badge Route this review mandate through owner rules

This persists a new executable review-experience mandate in a guides/ page, even though the repository contract requires PR-learning and review-experience intake to produce executable rules in the nearest owner's rules.md. Keeping the demand/check/conclude requirement here bypasses owner-scoped rule routing; merge it into the appropriate owner rule and update the checklist injection/index without duplicating the conclusion.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L12-L17

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

explicit blocking / non-blocking finding — never silence.

## Process norms maintainers enforce

- A PR fixing one of N problems in a linked issue: one comment names the
Expand Down
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions src/infermatrix_copilot/thin_mcp_server.py
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -184,6 +184,7 @@ def _knowledge_root() -> Path:
# unassisted baseline caught and Direct missed, and neither belongs to any component
# owner, so no knowledge route will surface them.
"When the diff adds or changes a test, check the assertions bind to real behavior and not to values the fixture, mock, or fake injected.",
"When the PR is a bugfix (title, labels, or linked issue), require a regression test that pins the original failure path; happy-path-only additions do not count, and a missing pin becomes an explicit blocking or non-blocking finding, never silence.",

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Expose bugfix signals to the Direct checklist

The new Direct item asks the host to condition on labels or linked issues, but the Direct contract only tells callers to collect and pass title, body, and changed_files, and review() has no labels or linked-issues input. For a PR with a neutral title/body whose only bugfix signal is a bug label or a GitHub sidebar link, a conforming Direct host has no data with which to activate this requirement, so the regression-coverage check is skipped; extend the Direct snapshot/input contract to include these signals or classify them before returning the checklist.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Carry the coverage-completeness audit into Direct

This Direct item stops after requiring a test for the original failure and a finding when that test is absent. Unlike the Strict addition, it never asks reviewers to inspect same-class entrypoints and boundaries or to record the reason and residual risk for accepted gaps. A narrowly targeted regression test can therefore satisfy Direct while identical failure paths remain uncovered, so Direct does not carry the claimed coverage-completeness duty.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

"When the diff passes a new argument to a dependency, check it against the lowest version the project's own constraints still permit, not the version installed here.",
"For resource or cache changes, trace budget measurement through reservation and physical consumption, including warmup/profile/activation ordering and low-resource behavior.",
"For runtime changes, trace exception propagation, partial-allocation cleanup, cancellation, timeout, shutdown, and concurrent scheduling to the terminal user-visible signal.",
Expand Down
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions test/test_thin_mcp_server.py
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -158,6 +158,10 @@ def test_direct_entrypoints_do_not_resolve_repo(monkeypatch):
"subtraction" in item
for item in review["first_review_checklist"]
)
assert any(
"pins the original failure path" in item
for item in review["first_review_checklist"]
)
assert any(
"consumers, trust boundaries, and lifecycle ownership" in item
for item in review["first_review_checklist"]
Expand Down
Loading