Skip to content

Re-review refutation wording, duplicate merge, eval cases - #120

Merged
polewskm merged 12 commits into
mainfrom
issue-114
Oct 31, 2026
Merged

polewskm merged 12 commits into
mainfrom
issue-114

Conversation

@polewskm

@polewskm polewskm commented Oct 31, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Verification counts a refuted finding it kept as a question (a blocker, a security finding, or one whose refutation cites only added lines) apart from one it couldn't settle, so first-review and re-review summaries say "refuted but kept" instead of "couldn't settle"; a re-review that kept a refuted should-fix as an unposted nit never approves (#114).
A re-review merges a problem correctness and security both report (same file, within three lines, same title words) into one finding at the higher severity naming both reviewers, and logs merged and near counts for the evals (#116).
An eval case can set sensitive paths; two new re-review cases cover the security floor (src/claims.ts) and a deep sensitive: re-review (src/fetch-head.ts), and --subset re-review runs the four re-review cases with each one's cost (#117).
The branch merges main in to resolve a CHANGELOG.md conflict, so merge this with a merge commit, not by rebasing.

Closes #114
Closes #116
Closes #117

A first review round clarified the README's verification sentence, tested the plural wording, shared the distance check and linked the eval references; main is merged in.

@polewskm
polewskm deployed to code-review October 31, 2026 22:44 — with GitHub Actions Active

@ncode-review ncode-review Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🤖 NCode Review at 8d09af6: 4 new findings on the changed lines.

Comment thread README.md Resolved
Comment thread src/rereview.ts Resolved
Comment thread src/threads.ts Resolved
Comment thread README.md Resolved
@ncode-review

ncode-review Bot commented Oct 31, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Superseded by the review at 63b1f8e.

@polewskm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/review

@ncode-review

ncode-review Bot commented Oct 31, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🤖 Review complete

Verdict: ✅ Approve — Re-review of what changed since the last review at 8d09af6: 4 hunks in 3 files and changes taken back in 1 file, by correctness only. Earlier findings: F1 fixed, F2 fixed, F3 fixed, F4 fixed. No further findings above nits.

1 reviewer run — 0 findings (run details)

Reviewer Model Findings Top
correctness sonnet-5-5 0 🟢

Trial: findings are posted as review threads and in the check run. $0.04 on Amazon Bedrock, 10s, at 63b1f8e. (how to interact)

📋 Outcomes

Merged at 63b1f8e: 2 fixed, 2 dismissed, 0 acknowledged, 0 ignored.

Finding Reviewer Severity Outcome
F1 hygiene 🟡 Nit ✅ fixed
F2 tests 🟡 Nit 👎 dismissed
F3 hygiene 🟡 Nit 👎 dismissed
F4 rule-check 🟡 Nit ✅ fixed

@polewskm
polewskm marked this pull request as ready for review October 31, 2026 23:07
@polewskm
polewskm deployed to code-review October 31, 2026 23:07 — with GitHub Actions Active
@polewskm
polewskm merged commit f5efd2a into main Oct 31, 2026
7 checks passed
@polewskm
polewskm deleted the issue-114 branch October 31, 2026 23:07
@polewskm
polewskm deployed to code-review October 31, 2026 23:07 — with GitHub Actions Active

This branch was successfully deployed

1 active deployment
code-review — 63b1f8e0 Deployed Oct 31, 2026 by polewskm via review #365
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Re-review eval cases for security and sensitive paths Re-review synthesis of overlapping findings Wording for kept refutations

1 participant