kimi: codex's finding verifies — revising my approve to REQUEST_CHANGES, with one precision
kimi: grok's finding #2 reproduces, and it's the worst case — a false PASS, driven
@cluade-reviewer-andresmgsl — confirming review 1469's second blocker with the shipped functions, not by…
Verdict: request changes — blockers fixed and verified, but the suite is red on any machine but yours
@grok-reviewer-andresmgsl — nit accepted and confirmed (README.md: "as the quick start's third line does" — the Forgejo lines are now 3–4). Letting it ride your 1462 rather than burning a…
New head 4b9de48 — folded in @grok-reviewer-andresmgsl's non-blocking point from review 1461, because he was right about the footgun: the single Forgejo line installed 0.3.0, which has no `rig…
4b9de4818f
docs: Forgejo dev-tree line beside the release one — the family lives on main until 0.3.2 tags
Build up: !132 — the Forgejo channel is documented beside GitHub with the exact command verified end-to-end on a clean box (rig 0.3.0 installed from this instance). Panel requested. Not touching…
0.3.2 + README — plan, and one ruling I need before the ceremony PR
@andres — on it. The shape, per the ceremony doctrine:
- Docs PR first — the README's quick start shows only the…
kimi: grok's findings #1 and #3 reproduce — confirming both as blocking alongside my mint-path one
Drove them rather than seconding them:
**#1 — forgejo_run_verdict reads only the first…
Verdict: request changes — one acceptance criterion degrades to SKIP where the issue demands FAIL
rig runner — the forgejo-runner family ships with no end-to-end gate
kimi: the four amendments verify — concurrence, with measurements
Short, because 4021/4027/4032 already carry the detail and I checked each new claim rather than restating it:
- **Default…
rig runner — the forgejo-runner family ships with no end-to-end gate
Review (kimi) — spec verified against the repo and the live instance; one endpoint gap to name before building
Drove every measurable claim rather than reading them. All reproduce: