Skip to content

chore(release): 0.106.3 — Lineage DAG + runLineageLoop + E2 scenario selection#323

Merged
drewstone merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chore/release-0.106.3
Jul 7, 2026
Merged

chore(release): 0.106.3 — Lineage DAG + runLineageLoop + E2 scenario selection#323
drewstone merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chore/release-0.106.3

Conversation

@drewstone

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Ships the multi-track improvement stack: Lineage DAG (#319, git-graph of candidates, multi-parent merges, visioned tracks incl. contrarian, agent-managed governor), runLineageLoop (#322, wires the DAG to the live improvement loop), and discriminative scenario selection (#321, E2 — pick holdout by signal, drop the saturated ties run 7 exposed). Version trio bumped. Tag → OIDC publish after merge.

…ve scenario selection

Ships the multi-track improvement stack: the Lineage DAG (git-graph of candidates
with multi-parent merges, visioned tracks, agent-managed governor), runLineageLoop
(wires the DAG to the live improvement loop), and discriminative scenario selection
(E2 — pick holdout by signal, drop saturated ties). All additive.

@tangletools tangletools left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — a226ff4d

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-07T18:08:18Z

@tangletools

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✅ No Blockers — a226ff4d

Review health 100/100 · Reviewer score 95/100 · Confidence 70/100 · 0 findings (none)

opencode-kimi glm deepseek aggregate
Readiness 95 95 95 95
Confidence 70 70 70 70
Correctness 95 95 95 95
Security 95 95 95 95
Testing 95 95 95 95
Architecture 95 95 95 95

Reviewer score is advisory once the run is complete and the verdict has no blockers.

Full multi-shot audit completed 2/2 planned shots over 3 changed files. Global verifier still owns final merge decision. | Full multi-shot audit completed 2/2 planned shots over 3 changed files. Global verifier still owns final merge decision. | Full multi-shot audit completed 2/2 planned shots over 3 changed files. Global verifier still owns final merge decision.

No findings.


tangletools · 2026-07-07T18:21:51Z · trace

@tangletools tangletools left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

✅ Clean — a226ff4d

Full multi-shot audit completed 2/2 planned shots over 3 changed files. Global verifier still owns final merge decision. | Full multi-shot audit completed 2/2 planned shots over 3 changed files. Global verifier still owns final merge decision. | Full multi-shot audit completed 2/2 planned shots over 3 changed files. Global verifier still owns final merge decision.

Full immutable report for this review: trace

Summary comment for this run: full summary


tangletools · 2026-07-07T18:21:51Z · immutable trace

@drewstone drewstone merged commit 7121c4a into main Jul 7, 2026
1 check passed

@tangletools tangletools left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🟢 Value Audit — sound

Verdict sound
Concerns 1 (1 weak-concern)
Heuristic 0.0s
Duplication 0.0s
Interrogation 942.3s (2 bridge agents)
Total 942.3s

💰 Value — sound

A clean, minimal release bump (0.106.2 → 0.106.3) across the standard version trio — ships the already-merged Lineage DAG / runLineageLoop / scenario-selection feature work.

  • What it does: Bumps three version strings in lockstep: package.json, clients/python/src/agent_eval_rpc/init.py (the PackageNotFoundError fallback), and clients/python/pyproject.toml — all 0.106.2 → 0.106.3. No code or behavior change; this is the release-cut for feature PRs #319/#321/#322 which were already merged to main.
  • Goals it achieves: Cut a publishable release so the Lineage DAG + runLineageLoop + discriminative scenario selection work becomes consumable via npm (@tangle-network/agent-eval) and PyPI (agent-eval-rpc) under a new semver, triggering the tag → OIDC publish flow described in the PR body.
  • Assessment: Sound. It is the repo's established release ritual — git log shows 0.103.0, 0.103.1, 0.103.2, 0.106.0, 0.106.1, 0.106.2 all cut as identical single-commit version trios. The bump is consistent across all three files (verified each), purely additive in semver (patch), and contains zero sneaked code changes. No grain conflict, no scope issue.
  • Better / existing approach: none — this is the right approach. Checked for an existing release automation/script (scripts/, .github/workflows/, release-please, changesets) that might already encode the version-trio bump; this repo does it by hand per its prior history, and the three files are the complete set of version-bearing files (grep of the repo for '0.106.2' returns exactly these three). Nothing to reuse or extend.
  • Model: opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2
  • Bridge attempts: 2
  • Bridge warning: opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7: bridge stream ended without value-audit content

🎯 Usefulness — error

usefulness agent produced no parseable value-audit JSON.

  • Model: opencode/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro
  • Bridge attempts: 3
  • Bridge error: opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2: bridge stream ended without value-audit content; opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7: bridge stream ended without value-audit content; opencode/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro: bridge stream ended without value-audit content

💰 Value Audit

🟡 PR body diff omits pyproject.toml [maintenance] ``

The PR body says 'Changed files (2)' and shows only package.json + init.py, but the commit also bumps clients/python/pyproject.toml (0.106.2 → 0.106.3). The version trio is internally consistent (verified via git show HEAD on all three files), so this is purely a body-vs-actual-diff cosmetic mismatch, not a correctness issue. No action required to ship.


What this audit checks

It judges the change on its merits — not whether it was tasked out in an issue. Unticketed, fast-moving work is fine; the question is whether the change is good and whether a better or existing approach should be used instead.

Pass What it asks
Heuristic Vague title? Whitespace-only or cruft-bearing diff? (content signals only)
Duplication Do added function/class names already exist elsewhere in the repo?
Value Audit What does it do? What goal does it achieve? Is it good? Better architecture or already-exists?
Usefulness Audit Does it integrate and fit? Will it hold up in real use and actually get used?

Findings are concerns, not blocks — the human reviewer decides what to do with them.

value-audit · 20260707T183611Z

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