Skip to content

Document conditional cloud review and optional human review - #2

Draft
antuz123 wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
codex/relay-review-owners
Draft

antuz123 wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
codex/relay-review-owners

Conversation

@antuz123

@antuz123 antuz123 commented Oct 7, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Cloud review now depends on actual severity, uncertainty, scope and cost; human developer review stays optional. Verified routine documentation, noncritical copy or pure style may skip a separate provider review with reason/evidence, but policy/security/agent/workflow documents cannot Skip. Bounded normal changes use Lite; signing, keys, authentication, recovery/backup, pairing, transactions, migrations, workflows, permissions, security dependencies/copy, cross-service/complex changes and unknown risk use Balanced.

Use the least-cost adequate authorized route, reuse valid exact-head/base coverage, make one initial review after stable checks and batch material fixes before necessary re-review. Independent coverage is needed only when an actual risk/finding requires it and an installed, authorized route/scope/budget exists. If scope, quota, cap or activation is unavailable, record unavailable and use another already-authorized adequate route or hold the applicable gate. Do not downgrade critical review, add paid retries/fallbacks or infer fresh allowance. Existing caps and historical balances do not activate a reviewer or grant budget; ordinary within-scope/allowance review does not need repeated permission.

Actual findings/dispositions, reviewed SHA/base/coverage and skipped/pending/unavailable results must be recorded. Required CI/status checks, substantive security concerns, native/device validation, product signoff and operation-specific signing/deployment/release authorization remain intact. Existing comment-only human CODEOWNERS suggestions remain optional and require no access grants.

Policy/docs/templates/agent instructions only: no runtime, workflow, R5 implementation, permission, secret, budget, merge or deployment change. No new provider request or paid review is claimed. Current recorded Copilot ready-PR automation, plus mobile every-push review, does not implement conditional triage; Markdown does not fix settings or install mobile reviewer #7049. Keep source preparation and installed automation status separate.

Historical receipts remain tied to exact original commits. Record current-head validation separately; skipped/unavailable review is not a clean review.

Current conditional-policy head: b948b8149b01172f488f53b3aadae657b884b886. An existing cloud agent who did not author these policy edits independently reviewed the exact prepared patch (manifest SHA-256 a0bf37b7be612932af8911e329899178f7db123c6b66aa0cd2a492df108b6a5a); no blocking finding. This is cloud-agent source evidence, not a completed Copilot/Claude provider review or formal GitHub approval. Fresh exact-head CI evidence follows. Policies remain draft/unmerged and live GitHub rules are unchanged: administrator access is still needed to remove enforced human approval and implement conditional triggering. No ready transition or new provider/paid review was requested.

Fresh exact-head CI: Fresh exact-head source-readiness39733657072 passed both secret scans. Build/test39733657063 failed the intact runtime dependency audit: twoHigh follow-redirects advisories,450packages,exit8; test step was skipped, so no fresh compile/test pass is claimed. The separate locally validated1.16.1 lock correction remains unpublished; this public-source failure does not reopen the accepted private production Relay deployment.

@antuz123
antuz123 requested review from cakesoft-utkarsh and a balanced review from Copilot October 7, 2026 12:25

Copilot AI 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.

Copilot review overview

🔵 Needs a closer look

The PR must remain draft until Ben’s repository access is explicitly approved and verified.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

What changed in this PR

Adds Ben and Utkarsh as default code owners for future Relay PRs into main.

Changes:

  • Adds a catch-all ownership rule for both developers.
  • Documents the separately enforced one-approval requirement.
File Description
.github/​CODEOWNERS Assigns both developers as owners of all files.

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

@antuz123 antuz123 changed the title Request Ben and Utkarsh on future Relay PRs Request Ben, Utkarsh, and Parsh on future Relay PRs Oct 7, 2026
@antuz123 antuz123 changed the title Request Ben, Utkarsh, and Parsh on future Relay PRs Document Copilot review process and default reviewer ownership Oct 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Cloud review-policy dependency check — 12 October 2026

Current source head 93d56a43029e1886ea8239f65734debe48d3a190 is unchanged; exact-head hosted CI is successful. Public GitHub permission read reports Ben=read, Parsh=read, Utkarsh=admin. Read access does not establish accepted CODEOWNERS write access. Keep this unapproved PR draft while the documented access dependency remains open; verify all intended owners before ready/merge. No invitation, role, review effort/quota, permission or branch-protection setting was changed. No fresh Copilot review was requested. Documentation review does not need native Mac testing, and no source-policy approval substitutes for app/Desktop/backend or release acceptance.

@antuz123 antuz123 changed the title Document Copilot review process and default reviewer ownership Document optional human reviewers and Copilot review process Oct 22, 2026
@antuz123 antuz123 changed the title Document optional human reviewers and Copilot review process Document conditional cloud review and optional human review Oct 22, 2026
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.

2 participants