Skip to content

Review infrastructure enrichment #16

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
Svaag wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Review infrastructure enrichment #16

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9,202 changes: 4,601 additions & 4,601 deletions exports/claims.jsonl
View file
Open in desktop

Large diffs are not rendered by default.

2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion exports/concepts.jsonl
View file
Open in desktop

Large diffs are not rendered by default.

102 changes: 51 additions & 51 deletions exports/eval-results.jsonl
View file
Open in desktop

Large diffs are not rendered by default.

Binary file modified exports/knowledge.sqlite
View file
Open in desktop
Binary file not shown.
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion exports/manifest.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1 +1 @@
{"claim_count":4601,"claim_extracted_at":"2026-06-23T12:07:25Z","concept_count":874,"context_pack_count":0,"edge_count":1899,"enrichment_run_count":2,"eval_case_count":51,"eval_result_count":51,"learning_event_count":4,"learning_ledger_version":"learning_ledger_v1","learning_review_count":0,"observation_count":2,"policy_decision_count":0,"policy_version":"knowledge_policy_v1","quality_finding_count":41,"retrieval_version":"retrieval_v1","run_id":"local-20260623120725","source_ref_count":1018,"source_shas":{}}
{"claim_count":4601,"claim_extracted_at":"2026-06-23T16:32:31Z","concept_count":874,"context_pack_count":0,"edge_count":1899,"enrichment_run_count":2,"eval_case_count":51,"eval_result_count":51,"learning_event_count":4,"learning_ledger_version":"learning_ledger_v1","learning_review_count":0,"observation_count":2,"policy_decision_count":0,"policy_version":"knowledge_policy_v1","quality_finding_count":41,"retrieval_version":"retrieval_v1","run_id":"local-20260623163231","source_ref_count":1018,"source_shas":{}}
5 changes: 4 additions & 1 deletion okf/generated/enriched/infrastructure.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -135,7 +135,10 @@ source_refs:
last_verified_at: '2026-06-23T11:19:14Z'
confidence: medium
dispute_policy: repo_wins
review_status: proposed
review_status: reviewed

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jun 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Keep the reviewed notice consistent

With review_status promoted here, the document body still starts with Review status: proposed and says to treat it as advisory until human-reviewed. When agents or humans consume the markdown/body excerpt for this infrastructure enrichment, they will see the opposite status from the frontmatter/exported concept, so this review promotion remains ambiguous; update the body banner like the reviewed services enrichment or keep the status proposed.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

reviewed_by: svag
reviewed_at: '2026-06-23T14:05:00Z'
review_note: Human-approved as useful advisory synthesis; repo source truth continues to win on conflict.
enrichment:
mode: llm
provider: openrouter
Expand Down
Loading