[Dong1017]

Governing Issue and delivery slice

Refs #137

• Accepted scope / delegation: The user invoked inferrsi-issue 137; the Issue owner plan records the bounded offline scope and delegated delivery/closure responsibility.
• What this PR delivers: Explicit goal checkpoints and deterministic, reason-coded next-action recommendations over the existing configured skill-comparison artifacts. A returning agent sees remaining criteria, dependencies, owner acceptance, frozen revisions/settings, usage and evidence identities in one disposable Markdown or JSON view.
• What it does not deliver: Model execution, retry/resume, a new authorization service, accounting ledger, scheduler, registry, dashboard or empirical effectiveness evidence. [Task] Distill LoopX goal authority and quota decision boundaries #149 is a separately assigned knowledge task and is not a dependency.

Knowledge authorship declaration

Not applicable to the protected knowledge paths: this changes a controller utility, its tests and operation guidance. Material implementation attribution is retained in the signed commit.

{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "head_sha": "34f2f2ac0f00eba51061913a55231b8d2667ca8f",
  "human_only": false,
  "material_ai_authors": [
    {"tool": "Codex", "model_id": "unknown", "effort": "unknown", "role": "author"}
  ]
}

Changed artifacts and evidence

Requirement	Actual change	Check / evidence and result	Remaining gap
Deterministic checkpoint, reasons and input identity	tools/goal_checkpoint.py: explicit input contract, typed recommendation and Markdown/JSON projection	Repeated builds match; source bytes/mtimes remain unchanged; distinct corrupt plan/validator/result bytes retain distinct identities, including early read failures and actual controller digests	None in the offline contract
Merged code and unknown acceptance remain incomplete	Owner decisions bind goal/scope/plan/criterion/evidence and the explicit acceptance owner	Merged-but-unaccepted and changed acceptance-binding cases	Owner records must be selected authentically by the caller; digests are byte identity, not signer authentication
Stale/corrupt/interrupted work cannot be proposed or accepted	Reuse existing frozen-plan and trial/status receipt validation; detect ambiguous/interrupted result directories	Missing/corrupt plan, receipt and answer cases; changed settings require matching new authorization	No execution recovery added
Respect limits and unknown usage	Ordered stop/new-plan/wait/authorization/proposal recommendations; existing usage retained	Token/time stops, unknown/invalid usage and no-retry cases	Observed tokens are not a provider-side hard cost cap
Recover the next step without conversation history	Self-contained generated view, before/after example and operation guidance in docs/goal-checkpoints.md	View includes criterion, next proposal, owner, dependencies, plan identities and reasons	Improved agent effectiveness is not claimed
Preserve grading and paired outcomes	Separate comparison read_report computation from explicit report writes; preserve the existing input-integrity flag without changing grades	Exact paired counts/conditions/report equivalence test; real failure/timeout and masked-integrity regression cases passed	Ready CI passed; independent exact-head LGTM; shared declaration workflow still blocks integration

Checks and dependencies

• Checks actually run (result and tested scope): At integrated head 34f2f2ac0f00eba51061913a55231b8d2667ca8f, python -m pytest tests/test_goal_checkpoint.py — 44 passed (198.99s); ruff check src tests tools and the PR diff check against integrated main — passed. Fresh Ready CI passed all four Python 3.10/3.11 full-check and clean-install jobs. Independent reviewer-agent LGTM covers the current full head. The checkpoint implementation, comparison reader, focused tests and goal guide remain byte-identical to the preceding reviewed head. All checks use offline software-contract fixtures/local subprocesses: zero model experiment calls.
• Failed, skipped, timed-out or not-run checks (if applicable): Independent integration selection initially had 4 passes and 1 Windows temporary-directory cleanup failure (WinError 32 after a correctly recorded timeout). Its cause was not established; an isolated timeout-case rerun passed. That initial failure is retained in the review receipt. The latest inspected shared declaration attempt failed, using trusted main d99593fea76a6a8f6dc3cda7ee9fe108570a366b: feat: derive offline goal checkpoints and next actions #150 at the current head succeeded in all three internal attempts, but Record MiniCPM-o throughput search, quality gates and peer baselines #51/Add Qwen3.8 FP8 correctness and service qualification workflows #55 admission invalidation returned HTTP 422. PR-associated declaration jobs were superseded/cancelled by the serial repository-wide writer. A stable success does not substitute for successful applicable workflow jobs. Historical failed/cancelled checks are retained. No model/GPU/cloud pilot was run or authorized.
• Dependencies / shared interfaces / integration assumptions (if applicable): Integrated main 0cffd20754e3202e5238a2878ac7653765e43d63 via a normal merge commit, resolving only adjacent operation-guide additions. Later assessed main a8e4c572cd39d0e2fe26233d0d7573fd8319910e changes knowledge content/projections only. Main will be refreshed again before any merge. Existing comparison report/receipt/grade contracts and fresh-only execution remain unchanged. Checkpoints are development-checkout utilities beside the existing comparison controller, not a new installed-package CLI.

Remaining work and Issue closure

• Remaining Issue requirements / follow-up: The integrated head has fresh independent LGTM and successful Ready checks. Clear the shared declaration-workflow blocker, refresh all live merge gates and relevant main changes, then squash merge and publish the whole-Issue acceptance/closure card.
• Goal-acceptance owner or accepted closure delegation: This chat's Issue owner under the user's explicit invoked workflow; public owner plan linked above.
• Goal ready for acceptance? Software acceptance evidence is available; integration and whole-Issue closure remain held on the shared workflow gate.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

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

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-26T03:20:34.071201Z	34f2f2a	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.

[Dong1017]

Requesting independent Dong1017 reviewer-agent review of head 4c8e59eb727b87be74f1dc4447662ba612a4fd0e against base 65147a03e465dc838770474736a620e04d72337e for the offline acceptance criteria in #137. The reviewer is separate from this Issue owner/implementer; please state that reviewer role and bind any approval as LGTM <full-head-sha>. Evidence: 32 focused checkpoint tests passed; full-source lint and diff checks passed; comparison regressions and Ready CI are pending. Please inspect the diff and affected contracts independently, with special attention to read-only behavior, explicit authority, missing/stale/interrupted evidence, unknown usage and unchanged paired semantics. #149 is separately assigned and outside this PR.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 4c8e59eb72

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 21efe995ad

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".

[Dong1017]

Independent reviewer-agent review

I am the independent reviewer agent for this PR, separate from the Issue owner and implementer, posting under the shared Dong1017 account.

LGTM f1b8b87

Reviewed the complete diff at head f1b8b87064e48750e60353a6d78ac41904abaf3d against base 65147a03e465dc838770474736a620e04d72337e, including the actual comparison producer/reader paths and the explicit goal, authorization and acceptance contracts.

Both reported defects are resolved: authentic execution/evaluation failures retain their recorded meaning; retained-artifact damage and changed inputs cannot be hidden by another error. Repair paths now include actual plan/validator/results and existing controller byte identities. Existing grading and paired-outcome computation is preserved.

Independent verification:

• 20 selected checkpoint cases passed at 21efe995adf9965172760d4b0aa7cf7c4e913892: seven real local failure modes, damaged/missing evidence, masked input changes, combined failure/artifact damage, and read-only determinism. Those failure-classification paths are unchanged in the final identity patch.
• Four selected cases passed at the final head: three distinct-damaged-input identity cases (including malformed result bytes with a matching receipt), plus read-only determinism.
• Final diff checks passed; the task working tree remained clean. These checks used the existing offline test client and local subprocesses, with zero model calls.

No unresolved code findings for the bounded #137 software slice. Authentic owner-record selection remains the caller's documented responsibility. #149 remains a separate task.

[Dong1017]

Requesting renewed independent Dong1017 reviewer-agent review of head 34f2f2ac0f00eba51061913a55231b8d2667ca8f against integrated main 0cffd20754e3202e5238a2878ac7653765e43d63. The Issue owner/implementer is requesting review, not supplying approval.

A normal merge of current main resolved the sole conflict by retaining both adjacent operation-guide entries. The PR still changes the same five files (915 additions / 2 deletions against main); checkpoint/comparison implementation, checkpoint tests and goal guide are byte-identical to the preceding head. Current-main changes include local-executor stdin isolation and the audit example clarification, plus campaign-report and documentation work.

Owner verification on this integrated tree: 44 checkpoint tests passed (198.99s), full-source Ruff and the PR diff check passed, zero model experiment calls. Please independently reassess the complete current diff and relevant integration paths, state your reviewer role, and bind any approval as LGTM 34f2f2ac0f00eba51061913a55231b8d2667ca8f. The earlier LGTM and Ready result are historical evidence for the preceding head only; fresh Ready/full and shared declaration checks must pass before merge. #149/#91 remain separate.

[Dong1017]

Independent reviewer-agent integration re-review

I am the independent reviewer agent, separate from the Issue owner and implementer, posting under the shared Dong1017 account.

LGTM 34f2f2a

Reassessed the complete PR at head 34f2f2ac0f00eba51061913a55231b8d2667ca8f against integrated main 0cffd20754e3202e5238a2878ac7653765e43d63. The preceding approval was not treated as approval of this new head.

Verified that the checkpoint implementation, comparison reader, checkpoint tests and goal guide are byte-identical to the preceding reviewed head. The operation-guide conflict resolution retains both checkpoint and campaign-chart entries. Inspected the integrated executor change and its actual callers: the client receives its prompt through argv, while the verifier reads explicit files, so stdin isolation preserves these contracts. The campaign report path does not become a checkpoint dependency.

Independent verification on this head, using Python 3.13.5:

• The five-case selection covered stdin isolation, read-only determinism, explicitly accepted paired outcomes, nonzero client exit and timeout.
• Initial result: four passed; the timeout case encountered Windows WinError 32 while removing its temporary directory. Its execution record correctly reported timeout, and the recorded process had exited. This failure is retained; its cause was not established.
• An isolated rerun of that timeout case passed. The timeout fixture, run-trial logic and process-cleanup module are unchanged from the preceding reviewed head.
• PR diff checks passed; the task working tree remained clean. All execution used the existing offline fixture/local subprocesses, with zero model experiment calls.

No new code findings in the reviewed integration. Current CI/declaration gates and whole-Issue acceptance remain separate integration responsibilities. #149/#91 remain outside this review.

[Dong1017]

Squash-merged under the owner's explicit batch instruction. Head 34f2f2a; merge 621ea37.

Evidence verified before merge:

• Scoped LGTM: feat: derive offline goal checkpoints and next actions #150 (comment)
• Ready CI: https://github.com/InferMatrixLab/InferRSI/actions/runs/40263465670 (four full-check/installed-package jobs passed).
• Required knowledge-model-policy SUCCESS on this exact head after trusted-main rescan: https://github.com/InferMatrixLab/InferRSI/actions/runs/40265285789/job/121386236310. The aggregate workflow may fail on other PRs; this does not claim it is globally green.
• Fresh conflict-free metadata and expected-head SHA guard. No bypass.

The current human merge instruction proceeds on scoped review, Ready tests and the actual required policy, not an assertion that every historical declarations job is green. Software/knowledge integration only; no Issue/campaign acceptance or model/hardware efficacy claim.