feat(autonomy): automation profile resolution precedence correct #1196

Merged

brent.edwards merged 4 commits from feature/m6-automation-profiles into master 2026-04-01 04:27:09 +00:00

Conversation 4 Commits 4 Files changed 7 +313 -48

brent.edwards commented 2026-03-29 08:30:07 +00:00

Member

Copy link

Summary

• Fix automation profile resolution precedence at plan-creation time to follow plan > action > project > global.
• Narrow exception handling in _resolve_plan_profile_ref to catch only (KeyError, ValueError, OSError) with warning-level structured logging, replacing bare except Exception: per CONTRIBUTING.md §Exception Propagation.
• Fix TDD feature file tag/title inconsistency: align to @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_1076 / "TDD Bug #1076" referencing the original bug ticket.
• Add BDD scenarios for plan-level profile override and config service error fallback.
• Harden lifecycle and Robot/Behave test paths for auto-progression and parallel CI stability (including pre-seeded DB initialization for tdd_plan_explain_plan_id helper).
• Update Robot helper timing/session patterns to reduce false negatives in long-running integration/E2E validations.

Approach

The automation profile resolution is implemented in PlanLifecycleService._resolve_plan_profile_ref, which evaluates the four-level precedence chain (plan > action > project > global) at use_action() time. The resolved profile is stored as an AutomationProfileRef on the Plan with provenance tracking. The ConfigService is used for project-scoped and global config lookups, with narrowed exception handling that logs warnings on failure and falls back to the settings default.

Validation

• nox -s lint ✅
• nox -s typecheck ✅
• nox -s unit_tests ✅
• nox -s coverage_report ✅ (97%)

Review Fix Round (Review #2963)

1. Bare except Exception: -> narrowed to (KeyError, ValueError, OSError) with warning logging - addresses CONTRIBUTING.md §Exception Propagation violation
2. Tag inconsistency fixed - @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_1076 with title "TDD Bug #1076"
3. Added 2 new BDD scenarios - plan-level override and config error fallback
4. Rebased onto latest master (532ea100)

Integration CI Follow-up

1. Addressed an intermittent integration_tests failure in workflow-05 helper logic caused by fixed-step lifecycle assumptions under auto-progression.
2. Updated helper lifecycle flow to be state-aware (phase + processing_state) before invoking each transition, covering both manual and auto-progressed paths.
3. Local verification after the fix:
   • nox -s integration_tests ✅
   • nox -s lint ✅
   • nox -s typecheck ✅
   • nox -s unit_tests ✅
   • nox -s e2e_tests ✅
   • nox -s coverage_report ✅

Closes #854

## Summary - Fix automation profile resolution precedence at plan-creation time to follow plan > action > project > global. - Narrow exception handling in `_resolve_plan_profile_ref` to catch only `(KeyError, ValueError, OSError)` with warning-level structured logging, replacing bare `except Exception:` per CONTRIBUTING.md §Exception Propagation. - Fix TDD feature file tag/title inconsistency: align to `@tdd_bug @tdd_bug_1076` / "TDD Bug #1076" referencing the original bug ticket. - Add BDD scenarios for plan-level profile override and config service error fallback. - Harden lifecycle and Robot/Behave test paths for auto-progression and parallel CI stability (including pre-seeded DB initialization for `tdd_plan_explain_plan_id` helper). - Update Robot helper timing/session patterns to reduce false negatives in long-running integration/E2E validations. ## Approach The automation profile resolution is implemented in `PlanLifecycleService._resolve_plan_profile_ref`, which evaluates the four-level precedence chain (plan > action > project > global) at `use_action()` time. The resolved profile is stored as an `AutomationProfileRef` on the Plan with provenance tracking. The `ConfigService` is used for project-scoped and global config lookups, with narrowed exception handling that logs warnings on failure and falls back to the settings default. ## Validation - `nox -s lint` ✅ - `nox -s typecheck` ✅ - `nox -s unit_tests` ✅ - `nox -s coverage_report` ✅ (97%) ## Review Fix Round (Review #2963) 1. **Bare `except Exception:` -> narrowed to `(KeyError, ValueError, OSError)` with warning logging** - addresses CONTRIBUTING.md §Exception Propagation violation 2. **Tag inconsistency fixed** - `@tdd_bug @tdd_bug_1076` with title "TDD Bug #1076" 3. **Added 2 new BDD scenarios** - plan-level override and config error fallback 4. **Rebased onto latest master** (532ea100) ## Integration CI Follow-up 1. Addressed an intermittent `integration_tests` failure in workflow-05 helper logic caused by fixed-step lifecycle assumptions under auto-progression. 2. Updated helper lifecycle flow to be state-aware (`phase` + `processing_state`) before invoking each transition, covering both manual and auto-progressed paths. 3. Local verification after the fix: - `nox -s integration_tests` ✅ - `nox -s lint` ✅ - `nox -s typecheck` ✅ - `nox -s unit_tests` ✅ - `nox -s e2e_tests` ✅ - `nox -s coverage_report` ✅ Closes #854

brent.edwards added this to the v3.5.0 milestone 2026-03-29 08:30:07 +00:00

brent.edwards added the

Type

Feature

label 2026-03-29 08:30:31 +00:00

brent.edwards added a new dependency 2026-03-29 08:31:19 +00:00

#854 feat(autonomy): automation profile resolution precedence correct (plan > action > global)

brent.edwards referenced this pull request 2026-03-29 08:31:37 +00:00

feat(autonomy): automation profile resolution precedence correct (plan > action > global) #854

brent.edwards referenced this pull request 2026-03-29 08:46:35 +00:00

feat(autonomy): automation profile resolution precedence correct (plan > action > global) #854

freemo approved these changes 2026-03-30 04:20:33 +00:00

Dismissed

freemo left a comment

Copy link

Review: APPROVED with Comments

Small, well-focused change implementing 4-level automation profile precedence.

Notes

1. Consider adding BDD scenarios specifically testing each precedence level (plan > action > project > global) individually. Currently only the TDD bug-capture test is updated.

2. The duplicate validation (CLI validates profile name, service also validates) is acceptable as defense-in-depth.

3. Good: Clean precedence chain logic with structured logging at each resolution level.

4. Good: ConfigService properly injected with a sensible default.

## Review: APPROVED with Comments Small, well-focused change implementing 4-level automation profile precedence. ### Notes 1. Consider adding BDD scenarios specifically testing each precedence level (plan > action > project > global) individually. Currently only the TDD bug-capture test is updated. 2. The duplicate validation (CLI validates profile name, service also validates) is acceptable as defense-in-depth. 3. **Good**: Clean precedence chain logic with structured logging at each resolution level. 4. **Good**: `ConfigService` properly injected with a sensible default.

freemo requested changes 2026-03-30 04:48:49 +00:00

freemo left a comment

Copy link

Updated Review (Deep Pass): REQUEST CHANGES

My initial review approved this PR. The deep review reveals a blocking issue.

New Finding: Bare except Exception: in _resolve_plan_profile_ref

At line ~905 of plan_lifecycle_service.py, the config resolution is wrapped in:

except Exception:
    ...  # silently falls back to settings.default_automation_profile

This catches all exceptions — including config corruption, permission errors, import failures, AttributeError, etc. — and silently falls back to the default profile. Per CONTRIBUTING.md §Exception Propagation: "Do not suppress errors. Let exceptions propagate."

Action required: Either narrow to specific expected exceptions (e.g., KeyError, FileNotFoundError) or at minimum log the caught exception at warning level so issues are traceable.

New Finding: Tag inconsistency

The feature file tag was changed from @tdd_issue_1076 to @tdd_issue_854, but the feature title still says "TDD Issue #1076". If #854 is correct, update the title. If #1076 is correct, revert the tag.

Previous findings still apply:

• Clean precedence chain logic with structured logging
• ConfigService properly injected with sensible default
• Duplicate validation (CLI + service) is acceptable defense-in-depth

## Updated Review (Deep Pass): REQUEST CHANGES My initial review approved this PR. The deep review reveals a blocking issue. ### New Finding: Bare `except Exception:` in `_resolve_plan_profile_ref` At line ~905 of `plan_lifecycle_service.py`, the config resolution is wrapped in: ```python except Exception: ... # silently falls back to settings.default_automation_profile ``` This catches **all exceptions** — including config corruption, permission errors, import failures, `AttributeError`, etc. — and silently falls back to the default profile. Per CONTRIBUTING.md §Exception Propagation: "Do not suppress errors. Let exceptions propagate." **Action required:** Either narrow to specific expected exceptions (e.g., `KeyError`, `FileNotFoundError`) or at minimum log the caught exception at `warning` level so issues are traceable. ### New Finding: Tag inconsistency The feature file tag was changed from `@tdd_issue_1076` to `@tdd_issue_854`, but the feature title still says "TDD Issue #1076". If #854 is correct, update the title. If #1076 is correct, revert the tag. ### Previous findings still apply: - Clean precedence chain logic with structured logging - `ConfigService` properly injected with sensible default - Duplicate validation (CLI + service) is acceptable defense-in-depth

freemo requested reviews from freemo, CoreRasurae 2026-03-30 05:14:05 +00:00

brent.edwards referenced this pull request 2026-03-30 12:04:35 +00:00

feat(autonomy): automation profile resolution precedence correct (plan > action > global) #854

brent.edwards referenced this pull request 2026-03-30 13:09:19 +00:00

feat(autonomy): automation profile resolution precedence correct (plan > action > global) #854

brent.edwards force-pushed feature/m6-automation-profiles from 859b74a5cb to d35280ff18 2026-03-31 03:15:41 +00:00 Compare

brent.edwards commented 2026-03-31 03:16:17 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy link

Review Response — Addressing Review #2963 (REQUEST_CHANGES by @freemo)

1. Bare except Exception: in _resolve_plan_profile_ref ✅ Fixed

Narrowed the exception handler to except (KeyError, ValueError, OSError) as exc: and added warning-level structured logging that records:

• The error message and type
• The settings fallback value being used

This covers the three exception categories that ConfigService.resolve() can legitimately raise (dict key errors, unregistered keys / TOML parse errors, file I/O issues). Any unexpected exception type (programming errors) will now propagate as required by CONTRIBUTING.md §Exception Propagation.

Added a new BDD scenario ("Plan falls back to settings default when config service raises an error") that exercises this handler via a _BrokenConfigService test double.

2. Tag inconsistency ✅ Fixed

Updated features/tdd_use_action_automation_profile.feature:

• Tags: @tdd_issue @tdd_issue_854 → @tdd_bug @tdd_bug_1076
• Title: "TDD Issue #1076" → "TDD Bug #1076"

The TDD test was correctly associated with bug #1076 (use_action() doesn't propagate automation_profile). Aligned tag convention to @tdd_bug per project standards.

3. Previous approved comments (informational) — Acknowledged

• BDD scenarios for each precedence level: Added a new scenario for plan-level override of action-level profile. Together with the existing scenarios, the feature file now covers action-level, project-level, global-level, plan-level override, and config-error fallback. More granular individual-level tests can be added in a follow-up if desired.
• Clean precedence chain logic / ConfigService injection / Duplicate validation — No changes needed, these were already approved.

Quality Gates (all pass)

• nox -s lint ✅
• nox -s typecheck ✅
• nox -s unit_tests ✅
• nox -s coverage_report ✅ (97.0%)

Rebase

Branch rebased onto latest origin/master (532ea100). Resolved one conflict in robot/resource_dag.robot (shared session variable naming — took master's convention).

## Review Response — Addressing Review #2963 (REQUEST_CHANGES by @freemo) ### 1. Bare `except Exception:` in `_resolve_plan_profile_ref` ✅ Fixed Narrowed the exception handler to `except (KeyError, ValueError, OSError) as exc:` and added warning-level structured logging that records: - The error message and type - The settings fallback value being used This covers the three exception categories that `ConfigService.resolve()` can legitimately raise (dict key errors, unregistered keys / TOML parse errors, file I/O issues). Any unexpected exception type (programming errors) will now propagate as required by CONTRIBUTING.md §Exception Propagation. Added a new BDD scenario ("Plan falls back to settings default when config service raises an error") that exercises this handler via a `_BrokenConfigService` test double. ### 2. Tag inconsistency ✅ Fixed Updated `features/tdd_use_action_automation_profile.feature`: - Tags: `@tdd_issue @tdd_issue_854` → `@tdd_bug @tdd_bug_1076` - Title: "TDD Issue #1076" → "TDD Bug #1076" The TDD test was correctly associated with bug #1076 (use_action() doesn't propagate automation_profile). Aligned tag convention to `@tdd_bug` per project standards. ### 3. Previous approved comments (informational) — Acknowledged - **BDD scenarios for each precedence level:** Added a new scenario for plan-level override of action-level profile. Together with the existing scenarios, the feature file now covers action-level, project-level, global-level, plan-level override, and config-error fallback. More granular individual-level tests can be added in a follow-up if desired. - **Clean precedence chain logic / ConfigService injection / Duplicate validation** — No changes needed, these were already approved. ### Quality Gates (all pass) - `nox -s lint` ✅ - `nox -s typecheck` ✅ - `nox -s unit_tests` ✅ - `nox -s coverage_report` ✅ (97.0%) ### Rebase Branch rebased onto latest `origin/master` (532ea100). Resolved one conflict in `robot/resource_dag.robot` (shared session variable naming — took master's convention).

brent.edwards force-pushed feature/m6-automation-profiles from 8111a98847 to 915e791a05 2026-04-01 02:04:50 +00:00 Compare

brent.edwards added 1 commit 2026-04-01 03:43:34 +00:00

chore(ci): rerun flaky checks c5dc794e03

brent.edwards added 1 commit 2026-04-01 04:05:57 +00:00

Merge branch 'master' into feature/m6-automation-profiles 172ab9afa9

brent.edwards removed a dependency 2026-04-01 04:06:50 +00:00

#854 feat(autonomy): automation profile resolution precedence correct (plan > action > global)

brent.edwards scheduled this pull request to auto merge when all checks succeed 2026-04-01 04:06:59 +00:00

brent.edwards commented 2026-04-01 04:16:48 +00:00

Author

Member

Copy link

Implementation note: addressing CI integration_tests instability found on this PR head.

• Review item addressed: intermittent workflow-05 lifecycle helper failure after complete_strategize when auto-progression advances the plan state earlier than the helper expected.
• Root cause: robot/helper_int_wf05_db_migration.py assumed a fixed linear transition sequence (complete_strategize -> execute_plan -> start_execute -> complete_execute). With auto-progression enabled, the plan can already be in EXECUTE/QUEUED (or later), so unconditional calls can become invalid and fail nondeterministically.
• Change made: updated _review_profile_behavior() and _plan_lifecycle_review_profile() to read the current (phase, processing_state) after each transition and only invoke the next operation when valid for that state.
• Design decision: keep assertions strict about expected states while making transition calls state-aware; this preserves behavioral guarantees without introducing sleeps/retries.
• Result: helper now supports both legitimate lifecycle paths (manual step-by-step and auto-progressed handoff), removing the race-sensitive assumption.

Key code location:

• robot/helper_int_wf05_db_migration.py (_review_profile_behavior, _plan_lifecycle_review_profile)

Implementation note: addressing CI `integration_tests` instability found on this PR head. - Review item addressed: intermittent workflow-05 lifecycle helper failure after `complete_strategize` when auto-progression advances the plan state earlier than the helper expected. - Root cause: `robot/helper_int_wf05_db_migration.py` assumed a fixed linear transition sequence (`complete_strategize -> execute_plan -> start_execute -> complete_execute`). With auto-progression enabled, the plan can already be in `EXECUTE/QUEUED` (or later), so unconditional calls can become invalid and fail nondeterministically. - Change made: updated `_review_profile_behavior()` and `_plan_lifecycle_review_profile()` to read the current `(phase, processing_state)` after each transition and only invoke the next operation when valid for that state. - Design decision: keep assertions strict about expected states while making transition calls state-aware; this preserves behavioral guarantees without introducing sleeps/retries. - Result: helper now supports both legitimate lifecycle paths (manual step-by-step and auto-progressed handoff), removing the race-sensitive assumption. Key code location: - `robot/helper_int_wf05_db_migration.py` (`_review_profile_behavior`, `_plan_lifecycle_review_profile`)

brent.edwards merged commit 34dcf5226f into master 2026-04-01 04:27:09 +00:00

brent.edwards deleted branch feature/m6-automation-profiles 2026-04-01 04:27:09 +00:00

brent.edwards referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-04-01 04:27:11 +00:00

feat(autonomy): automation profile resolution precedence correct (#1196)

freemo referenced this pull request 2026-04-02 16:58:16 +00:00

[Automated] Product Build Session State #1314

freemo referenced this pull request 2026-04-02 19:05:30 +00:00

bug(plan): use_action() does not resolve or propagate automation_profile to created Plan #1076

freemo referenced this pull request 2026-04-03 01:09:35 +00:00

fix(plan): resolve automation profile at plan-use time per spec precedence rules #1178

freemo referenced this pull request 2026-04-03 01:09:37 +00:00

bug(plan): use_action() does not resolve or propagate automation_profile to created Plan #1076

freemo referenced this pull request 2026-04-03 18:56:58 +00:00

bug(plan): use_action() does not resolve or propagate automation_profile to created Plan #1076

freemo referenced this pull request 2026-04-05 03:44:11 +00:00

fix(plan): resolve automation profile at plan-use time per spec precedence rules #1178

freemo referenced this pull request 2026-04-05 04:55:24 +00:00

fix(plan): resolve automation profile at plan-use time per spec precedence rules #1178

freemo referenced this pull request 2026-04-05 04:57:17 +00:00

bug(plan): use_action() does not resolve or propagate automation_profile to created Plan #1076

Sign in to join this conversation.

Reviewers

No reviewers

freemo

CoreRasurae

Labels

Clear labels   

auto/needs-reevaluation

Controller deferred this PR; awaiting Phase 6+ scope-evaluator or operator re-enablement.

  

controller-managed

Auto-agents controller manages this PR/issue (see tools/controller/deploy/RUNBOOK.md). Remove this label to abandon controller management.

  

auto/blocked-by-deps

PR blocked by an open issue dependency. Operator must close the dep (or remove the dependency link) before the merge driver can act. Auto-cleared by merge_drive when no open deps remain.

  

auto/ci-timeout

Most recent merge cycle hit CI timeout. Driver excludes this PR while last merge_cycle row is < 30 min old; label persists thereafter as visible history.

  

auto/claimed-implementer

Currently being processed by an implementer worker.

  

auto/claimed-merge

Currently being processed by the merge driver.

  

auto/claimed-reviewer

Currently being processed by a reviewer worker.

  

auto/driver-down

Merge driver heartbeat stale; pipeline halted. Closed automatically on next clean tick.

  

auto/invariant-violation

Detected master commit violating the strict merge invariant. Tracked as an issue (not a PR label); kept here for label completeness.

  

auto/last-attempt-tier-0

In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 0 slot (`tier-0`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.

  

auto/last-attempt-tier-1

In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 1 slot (`tier-1`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.

  

auto/last-attempt-tier-2

In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 2 slot (`tier-2`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Gated behind IMPLEMENTER_ESCALATION_TIER2_ENABLED.

  

auto/last-attempt-tier-min

In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier -1 slot (`tier-min`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Suffix is ``-min`` (not ``--1``) so the Forgejo UI reads naturally.

  

Automation Tracking

Tracking issues used by the AI Automation system for agents to communicate and report.

  

auto/needs-conflict-resolution

Rebase conflict needs LLM conflict-resolver.

  

auto/needs-implementer

Failing CI needs implementer attention.

  

auto/postmortem

Documenting a driver incident or rollback.

  

auto/ready-to-merge

Reviewer has APPROVED this PR and no later REQUEST_CHANGES is outstanding. The merge driver requires this label to even consider a PR for merging. Set by the reviewer worker on APPROVE; cleared on REQUEST_CHANGES.

  

auto/restart-throttled

Train repeatedly lost master-tempo races. Driver excludes via merge_cycle until cooldown elapses; label persists as visible history.

  

auto/revert

Revert PR backing out an invariant violation. Fast-tracked through the merge driver.

  

auto/sentinel

Sentinel PR duplicated from upstream into a personal fork by tools/duplicate_prs_to_fork.py for pipeline testing. Lives only in the fork; the canonical pipeline never sees it.

  

auto/stale-inactivity

No implementer activity for N days. Flagged for human review. Auto-cleared on next push to head branch.

  

auto/unstable

Repeatedly fails on current master (>= 3 ci-fail-on-rebased-sha releases in 12 h). Excluded from driver until human triage.

  

Blocked

A ticket in a blocked state and unable to complete until some other task is completed first.

  

Bounty

$100

A bounty of $100 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$1000

A bounty of $1000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$10000

A bounty of $10000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$20

A bounty of $20 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$2000

A bounty of $2000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$250

A bounty of $250 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$50

A bounty of $50 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$500

A bounty of $500 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$5000

A bounty of $5000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

Bounty

$750

A bounty of $750 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue

  

MoSCoW

Could have

Could have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.

  

MoSCoW

Must have

Must have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.

  

MoSCoW

Should have

Should have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.

  

Needs Feedback

There are questions in the ticket that can not be completed until the project owner provides clarity.

  

Points

1

1 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

13

13 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

2

2 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

21

21 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

3

3 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

34

34 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

5

5 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

55

55 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

8

8 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Points

88

88 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.

  

Priority

Backlog

This ticket has backlogged priority and is not to be worked on yet

  

Priority

CI Blocker

Critical priority issue that blocks CI/CD pipeline and prevents PR merges

  

Priority

Critical

The priority is critical

  

Priority

High

The priority is high

  

Priority

Low

The priority is low

  

Priority

Medium

The priority is medium

  

Signed-off: Owner

When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.

  

Signed-off: Scrum Master

When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.

  

Signed-off: Tech Lead

When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.

  

Spike

A ticket for learning a tool or technology that is needed to be able to do future planning and design.

  

State

Completed

The ticket has been fully implemented, completed, and merged with the source code. This label should only be applied once a ticket is closed.

  

State

Duplicate

A ticket that represents the same content as an existing ticket.

  

State

In Progress

A ticket that is actively being developed.

  

State

In Review

A ticket that has had some code completed to implement but is waiting to pass peer review and is not yet merged in.

  

State

Paused

This ticket's work started but wasn't finished. It's on hold (likely in a feature branch) and will be resumed later, either due to a blocker or a delay.

  

State

Unverified

All new tickets start in this state. A developer may set it to show the ticket is unverified. This means we haven't agreed to work on it. It will either move to a verified state or be closed as wontdo.

  

State

Verified

The issue has been verified by a developer as legitimate. It will be worked on and verified tickets are now considered part of the backlog.

  

State

Wont Do

This ticket has been decided it wont be done. This may mean the bug has been determined to not be real (cant verify) or the feature is one we have decided we dont want to adopt.

  

Type

Automation

Any edits or discussion about the AI automated coding system.

  

Type

Bug

Something that doesnt work as intended.

  

Type

Discussion

Anytime a ticket represents a discussion about a subject and doesnt fall into one of the other categories.

  

Type

Documentation

An error or improvement needed in the documentation.

  

Type

Epic

Any first tier epic. That is, an epic which contains only issues as children and will not have sub-epics.

  

Type

Feature

Some new functionality not present.

  

Type

Legendary

A type of Epic which will contain other Epics.

  

Type

Refactor

A code change that restructures existing code without changing its external behavior.

  

Type

Support

Someone needs help using the project.

  

Type

Task

A generic task that doesnt fit into the other type categories.

  

Type

Testing

Work exclusively focusing on fixing or expanding testing.

No labels

auto/needs-reevaluation

controller-managed

auto/blocked-by-deps

auto/ci-timeout

auto/claimed-implementer

auto/claimed-merge

auto/claimed-reviewer

auto/driver-down

auto/invariant-violation

auto/last-attempt-tier-0

auto/last-attempt-tier-1

auto/last-attempt-tier-2

auto/last-attempt-tier-min

Automation Tracking

auto/needs-conflict-resolution

auto/needs-implementer

auto/postmortem

auto/ready-to-merge

auto/restart-throttled

auto/revert

auto/sentinel

auto/stale-inactivity

auto/unstable

Blocked

Bounty

$100

Bounty

$1000

Bounty

$10000

Bounty

$20

Bounty

$2000

Bounty

$250

Bounty

$50

Bounty

$500

Bounty

$5000

Bounty

$750

MoSCoW

Could have

MoSCoW

Must have

MoSCoW

Should have

Needs Feedback

Points

1

Points

13

Points

2

Points

21

Points

3

Points

34

Points

5

Points

55

Points

8

Points

88

Priority

Backlog

Priority

CI Blocker

Priority

Critical

Priority

High

Priority

Low

Priority

Medium

Signed-off: Owner

Signed-off: Scrum Master

Signed-off: Tech Lead

Spike

State

Completed

State

Duplicate

State

In Progress

State

In Review

State

Paused

State

Unverified

State

Verified

State

Wont Do

Type

Automation

Type

Bug

Type

Discussion

Type

Documentation

Type

Epic

Type

Feature

Type

Legendary

Type

Refactor

Type

Support

Type

Task

Type

Testing

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No milestone

v3.5.0

Projects

Clear projects

No items

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

No assignees

2 participants

Notifications

Subscribe

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

cleveragents/cleveragents-core!1196

No description provided.