tti/coding-standards
Watch
5
0
Fork
You've already forked coding-standards
 0
Code Issues Pull requests 2 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

wheel: standards amendments 20260727 #4

Open
tti-admin wants to merge 3 commits from wheel/20260727 into main
pull from: wheel/20260727
merge into: tti:main
Conversation 1 Commits 3 Files changed 2 +17
tti-admin commented 2026-07-27 14:09:34 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Weekly standards mining from confirmed panel-review findings (last 30 days, 99 confirmed findings).

  • python.md — Multiple medium‑severity findings reported uncaught IndexError in keep_last when n exceeds the collection size. Explicit input validation would have prevented these crashes.
  • python.md — Several high‑ and medium‑severity findings identified unbounded retry loops without backoff (e.g., in collab‑hub‑stack, tti‑ai‑studio, landscape). Enforcing bounded retries with backoff eliminates the risk of resource exhaustion and hanging pipelines.
  • security.md — Multiple findings across different repositories (boards‑demo, landscape, etc.) reported hard‑coded URLs that break in non‑containerized environments and expose configuration details. Treating endpoints as configurable secrets prevents these deployment‑time failures.

Drafted by the wheel (ai/standards-evolve.sh); the panel reviews this PR like any other. Merge = the next review cycle enforces it.

Weekly standards mining from confirmed panel-review findings (last 30 days, 99 confirmed findings). - **python.md** — Multiple medium‑severity findings reported uncaught IndexError in `keep_last` when `n` exceeds the collection size. Explicit input validation would have prevented these crashes. - **python.md** — Several high‑ and medium‑severity findings identified unbounded retry loops without backoff (e.g., in collab‑hub‑stack, tti‑ai‑studio, landscape). Enforcing bounded retries with backoff eliminates the risk of resource exhaustion and hanging pipelines. - **security.md** — Multiple findings across different repositories (boards‑demo, landscape, etc.) reported hard‑coded URLs that break in non‑containerized environments and expose configuration details. Treating endpoints as configurable secrets prevents these deployment‑time failures. Drafted by the wheel (ai/standards-evolve.sh); the panel reviews this PR like any other. Merge = the next review cycle enforces it.
wheel: amend python.md from confirmed review findings
Some checks failed
baseline-security / baseline (push) Has been cancelled
Details
7a7a71106c
wheel: amend python.md from confirmed review findings
Some checks failed
baseline-security / baseline (push) Has been cancelled
Details
0e17f08c13
wheel: amend security.md from confirmed review findings
All checks were successful
ai-review / review (pull_request) Successful in 43s
Details
baseline-security / baseline (push) Successful in 46s
Details
baseline-security / baseline (pull_request) Successful in 51s
Details
bf1385e507
ai-review-bot commented 2026-07-27 14:10:19 +00:00
Member
Copy link

AI review · advisory

Verdict: looks good — all three reviewers found nothing that needs fixing.

  • GPT-OSS 120B: The documentation changes introduce sensible guidelines and do not conflict with existing standards.
  • Gemma 4 31B: The changes are logically sound and improve the standards, though there is a slight overlap between the new service endpoint rule and existing secret management guidelines.
  • Devstral 2 123B: The changes are consistent with the existing standards and introduce clear, actionable guidelines without correctness or security issues.

⚑ panel: GPT-OSS 120B · Gemma 4 31B · Devstral 2 123B — 1 raised, 0 confirmed, 1 refuted · web: not used · context: 2 files · 0 codebase · 0 standards chunks

Panel debate — how this review was reached

Grounding — context: 2 files · 0 codebase · 0 standards chunks

Round 1 — independent reviews

  • GPT-OSS 120B (0 findings, confidence 0.96): The documentation changes introduce sensible guidelines and do not conflict with existing standards.
  • Gemma 4 31B (1 finding, confidence 1.0): The changes are logically sound and improve the standards, though there is a slight overlap between the new service endpoint rule and existing secret management guidelines.
  • Devstral 2 123B (0 findings, confidence 1.0): The changes are consistent with the existing standards and introduce clear, actionable guidelines without correctness or security issues.

Round 2 — cross-examination

  • Gemma 4 31B#1 Redundant standard · confirmed: — · refuted: GPT-OSS 120B, Devstral 2 123B

Raised but refuted (left out of the review above)

  • Gemma 4 31B#1 Redundant standard — The 'Secrets' rule in python.md only prohibits secrets in source, defaults, and logs, and does not cover hard‑coded service endpoint URLs. The new rul

Synthesis — Devstral 2 123B wrote the final review from 0 confirmed findings.

Transcript rv-20260727141002-4742cf — full round outputs, web results, and model reasoning are viewable by anyone with access to this repository via the AI gateway.

Full transcript: http://host.containers.internal:3939/-/ai/v1/review/rv-20260727141002-4742cf

Three superPOD models reviewed this independently and cross-examined each other; only what survived is shown. Advisory — never a merge gate.

### AI review · advisory **Verdict: looks good** — all three reviewers found nothing that needs fixing. - *GPT-OSS 120B*: The documentation changes introduce sensible guidelines and do not conflict with existing standards. - *Gemma 4 31B*: The changes are logically sound and improve the standards, though there is a slight overlap between the new service endpoint rule and existing secret management guidelines. - *Devstral 2 123B*: The changes are consistent with the existing standards and introduce clear, actionable guidelines without correctness or security issues. <sub>⚑ panel: GPT-OSS 120B · Gemma 4 31B · Devstral 2 123B — 1 raised, 0 confirmed, 1 refuted · web: not used · context: 2 files · 0 codebase · 0 standards chunks</sub> <details> <summary>Panel debate — how this review was reached</summary> **Grounding** — context: 2 files · 0 codebase · 0 standards chunks **Round 1 — independent reviews** - **GPT-OSS 120B** (0 findings, confidence 0.96): The documentation changes introduce sensible guidelines and do not conflict with existing standards. - **Gemma 4 31B** (1 finding, confidence 1.0): The changes are logically sound and improve the standards, though there is a slight overlap between the new service endpoint rule and existing secret management guidelines. - **Devstral 2 123B** (0 findings, confidence 1.0): The changes are consistent with the existing standards and introduce clear, actionable guidelines without correctness or security issues. **Round 2 — cross-examination** - `Gemma 4 31B#1` Redundant standard · confirmed: — · refuted: GPT-OSS 120B, Devstral 2 123B **Raised but refuted** (left out of the review above) - `Gemma 4 31B#1` Redundant standard — The 'Secrets' rule in python.md only prohibits secrets in source, defaults, and logs, and does not cover hard‑coded service endpoint URLs. The new rul **Synthesis** — Devstral 2 123B wrote the final review from 0 confirmed findings. <sub>Transcript `rv-20260727141002-4742cf` — full round outputs, web results, and model reasoning are viewable by anyone with access to this repository via the AI gateway.</sub> </details> <sub>Full transcript: http://host.containers.internal:3939/-/ai/v1/review/rv-20260727141002-4742cf</sub> <sub>Three superPOD models reviewed this independently and cross-examined each other; only what survived is shown. Advisory — never a merge gate.</sub>
All checks were successful
ai-review / review (pull_request) Successful in 43s
Details
baseline-security / baseline (push) Successful in 46s
Details
baseline-security / baseline (pull_request) Successful in 51s
Details
This pull request can be merged automatically.
This branch is out-of-date with the base branch
You are not authorized to merge this pull request.
View command line instructions

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.
git fetch -u origin wheel/20260727:wheel/20260727
git switch wheel/20260727

Merge

Merge the changes and update on Forgejo.

Warning: The "Autodetect manual merge" setting is not enabled for this repository, you will have to mark this pull request as manually merged afterwards.

git switch main
git merge --no-ff wheel/20260727
git switch wheel/20260727
git rebase main
git switch main
git merge --ff-only wheel/20260727
git switch wheel/20260727
git rebase main
git switch main
git merge --no-ff wheel/20260727
git switch main
git merge --squash wheel/20260727
git switch main
git merge --ff-only wheel/20260727
git switch main
git merge wheel/20260727
git push origin main
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
  
idea
Feature suggestion — shows on the repo's Ideas tab

  
points
1
 Estimate: 1 point

  
points
13
 Estimate: 13 points

  
points
2
 Estimate: 2 points

  
points
3
 Estimate: 3 points

  
points
5
 Estimate: 5 points

  
points
8
 Estimate: 8 points

  
priority
p0
 Drop everything

  
priority
p1
 High

  
priority
p2
 Medium

  
priority
p3
 Low

  
state
blocked
 Blocked — see dependencies

  
state
done
 Complete

  
state
in-progress
 Being worked

  
state
ready
 Ready to start

  
state
review
 In review

  
state
triage
 Needs triage

  
status
declined
 Not planned — see the closing comment

  
status
in-progress
 Actively being built

  
status
planned
 Accepted — on the roadmap

  
status
proposed
 New suggestion, not yet reviewed

  
status
shipped
 Delivered

  
status
under-review
 Being evaluated by maintainers

  
type
bug
 Defect in existing behaviour

  
type
epic
 Large body of work spanning multiple stories

  
type
feature
 Shippable capability under an epic

  
type
spike
 Time-boxed investigation / research

  
type
story
 User-facing increment, points-estimated

  
type
task
 Implementation unit under a story

No labels
idea
points
1
points
13
points
2
points
3
points
5
points
8
priority
p0
priority
p1
priority
p2
priority
p3
state
blocked
state
done
state
in-progress
state
ready
state
review
state
triage
status
declined
status
in-progress
status
planned
status
proposed
status
shipped
status
under-review
type
bug
type
epic
type
feature
type
spike
type
story
type
task
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set

Reference
tti/coding-standards!4
No description provided.