[Dong1017]

Refs #246 (parent #91). One cohesive implementation includes safe display and the required authenticated historical report-only compatibility path.

• Show baseline/candidate finite answer fields, component changes, concrete citation failure reasons and coverage limits before operational budget controls. Preserve aggregate scores and hidden oracle answers.
• Escape and bound metadata; discard artifact-supplied feedback and recreate presentation only after trusted regrading. Preserve stale/expired/mismatched behavior.
• Explicit publish + source_run authenticates original run/attempt/repository/live PR and verified ledger, imports original frozen inputs as data, and uses original trusted main-ancestor Git verifier in a stripped report-only subprocess. Never execute artifact code or relax controller hashes. Current explanatory grader/schema must match; original plan/results and separate renderer metadata are retained. Verification failure aborts before comment write.
• Publish checkout has full ancestry; original-plan/new-writer/current-PR guards remain. No new model calls, reservations/refunds or grader changes.

Validation:83 sanitized unittest tests and15 directly invoked existing summary scenarios pass; compilation and whitespace checks pass. Independent helper/caller review independently ran34 focused tests. Actual retained #133 data locally regrades FAIL→FAIL, with diagnosis and next-check improvement plus extra citation failure; no remote authentication/bot delivery is claimed yet. Full pytest/Ruff were unavailable locally; hosted CI remains required.

Material author: OpenAI Codex. #246 stays open after code merge until actual github-actions PR133 feedback is published through the report-only path and read back. No efficacy or automatic approval claim.

[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 2026-10-29T07:17:18.096190Z	9cda054	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.

[github-actions]

Skill evaluation

Automatic execution / cumulative PR budget: {"reason":"Audited PR/global daily ledger missing, unavailable, quarantined or unsafe","remaining_usd":"unknown","reserved_or_unresolved_usd":"unknown","spent_or_legacy_usd":"unknown","state":"blocked"}

Advisory: obtain missing evidence

Retained evidence availability: planned / unexecuted. No approval or merge authorization is issued.

• Retained evidence is planned / unexecuted.
• No supported comparison cases were selected.
• Uncovered/unsupported scope needs a case or explicit reviewer disposition.

PLANNED: execution is not authorized by knowing this hash.
Outcomes: {"fix":0,"inconclusive":0,"missing_pair":0,"regression":0,"unchanged_correct":0,"unchanged_incorrect":0}
Earlier revision results are stale for this plan.

Selected comparisons: 0 · Estimated task calls: 0.
Uncovered/unsupported changes: 9. Gaps never count as passes.

Applicable only while these revisions and inputs match the current PR.
Paid execution requires trusted label authorization and cumulative PR reservation. Unknown accounting blocks new paid calls; planning is not execution.
Pipeline evidence only; offline fixed outputs do not establish skill efficacy.
Evidence and logs · Retention: 30 days.
Outcomes are historical; verifiable only before Unix time 1795851904 while the linked artifact is available. Expired evidence is unverified.

Plan bindings, budget, frozen exam and advisory details

Unchanged-correct is valid neutral evidence, not incremental benefit.
Content/source review and authorship admission remain separate.
Trusted regrading checks retained answers, not model/hardware provenance or a hostile executor; this is not an efficacy certification.

Per-case outcomes (discovery excluded; regressions and gaps first):

[]

Showing at most 20 of 0 pairs; the evidence link contains all outcomes, including omitted regressions/gaps.

Plan SHA-256: ef40446fae9ffeb24169fe448d20474820739298950a9d318a96ef3fcc57d3b8
Base: 173e9c3cb56a83fe31cf0c2d3184c429db303781 · Head: 9cda054e3b12dc60c06679ffed04be00d3829c2d
Trusted implementation: 173e9c3cb56a83fe31cf0c2d3184c429db303781

Model/settings: {"effort":"not_applicable","name":"claude-opus-5-5"}
Budget: {"comparisons":0,"estimated_calls":0,"limits_per_comparison":{"campaign_seconds":600,"max_task_calls":2,"repeats":1,"timeout_seconds":180,"token_stop_new_trials":200000},"provider_config_sha256":"b28d80f8194fbe0f5a9f01515efb24b218979fd45f702776560da276f4b30d04","reservation":null}

Skill	Comparison	Cases	Estimated calls

Provider/settings: {"client":{"api_version":"2023-06-01","endpoint":"https://yibuapi.com/v1/messages","kind":"anthropic-messages-full-context-v1","max_output_tokens":4096,"max_read_bytes":32768,"max_request_bytes":262144,"max_requests":1,"max_tool_calls":12,"provider":"yibuapi"},"limits":{"token_stop_new_trials":200000},"model":{"effort":"not_applicable","name":"claude-opus-5-5"},"pricing":{"currency":"USD","expires_at":1793271228,"group":"default","max_input_tokens":1000000,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","rate_evidence":"https://github.com/InferMatrixLab/InferRSI/issues/215#issuecomment-6467531341","rates":{"cache_read":"0.4","cache_write":"10","input":"8","output":"40"},"request_fee":"0","unit":"per_million_tokens"},"spend_limit":{"amount":"200","currency":"USD"}}

Uncovered / unsupported paths (9)

• uncovered: ".github/workflows/skill-eval-pr.yml"
• uncovered: "docs/skill-eval-pr.md"
• uncovered: "tests/test_skill_eval_feedback.py"
• uncovered: "tests/test_skill_eval_pr.py"
• uncovered: "tests/test_skill_eval_pr_summary.py"
• uncovered: "tests/test_skill_eval_retained.py"
• uncovered: "tools/skill_eval_feedback.py"
• uncovered: "tools/skill_eval_pr.py"
• uncovered: "tools/skill_eval_retained.py"

[Dong1017]

LGTM for #246's code delivery at9cda054e3b12dc60c06679ffed04be00d3829c2d against173e9c3cb56a83fe31cf0c2d3184c429db303781. Not formal APPROVE (authenticated account is the author). #246 remains open pending real report-only bot delivery.

Independent source/security and caller review verified original run/repository/attempt/ledger/live-revision/expiry bindings, trusted main-ancestor Git verifier rather than artifact code, exact original controller hashes, stripped report-only subprocess, current explanatory grader/schema compatibility, original-plan/new-writer guards and failure-before-write. Historical reports persist original plan/results with separate presentation provenance. The subprocess audit hooks are accidental-use defense, not a hostile-code sandbox.

Display review verifies finite allowlisted submitted fields, bounded/escaped metadata, no hidden expected answers, trusted regrading before projection, missing/stale/invalid states and unchanged strict outcomes. Actual retained PR133 data independently regraded locally as FAIL→FAIL / unchanged_incorrect=1 while showing diagnosis/next-check improvements and extra citation failure. No provider/model call occurred.

Review issues resolved before publication: removed accidental admission/execution insertions; persisted original-plan report artifacts; corrected double escaping and separated hashes; restored fixed no-fallback wording after four CI assertions, with hostile oversized-reason regression. Refreshed public reviews/inline threads have no unresolved findings; current-head automated review6490356640 is completed/no findings.

Ready https://github.com/InferMatrixLab/InferRSI/actions/runs/40834339518 passes all4 jobs, inspected3.11:2496 passed,11 skipped,284 subtests, Ruff success, this head merged into stated base. 84 focused unittest and15 directly invoked summary scenarios also passed locally. The prior failed head remains historical. Current policy/lint checks pass.

SkillEval's zero-case advisory on this infrastructure PR is not efficacy evidence; accepted code scope is report correctness/security. Closure still requires the actual github-actions #133 comment and retained report artifacts to be checked after report-only publication, without new paid evaluation.