Add Artifact Inspector interaction model - #49
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a0caed6f82
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| trustedRuntimeEvidence: | ||
| getTrustedVisualCompositionEvidence(candidate) | ||
| ?.artifact_inspector_authority ?? null, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When an Artifact Inspector candidate is reviewed through reviewUiImplementationCandidateWithBrowserRuntime, the trusted WeakMap entry contains only manifest and receipt, so this lookup always resolves .artifact_inspector_authority to null. The authority gate therefore remains review_required even after the trusted browser path runs, making passed_with_external_artifact_authority unreachable through the implementation-review API; the browser runtime needs to measure and attach the separate scope, preservation, and boundary receipt.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| if ( | ||
| /\b(?:consequential|commit|approve|reject|publish|external effect|outcome pending|committing|commit succeeded|known failure|unknown result|receipt reconciliation|immutable receipt|concurrent result|superseding action)\b/.test( | ||
| activityText, | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a brief explicitly says the inspection is non-consequential, “does not approve,” or otherwise negates one of these terms, this raw regex still matches the keyword and activates the consequential state group. A valid core-only workflow is then rejected and its handoff is forced to require commitment and receipt states that the activity explicitly excludes; use the existing affirmed/negation-aware matching logic when deriving conditional groups.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Validation
Intentional gap
Trusted rendered/browser authority proof is not implemented in this PR. Candidate-authored receipts cannot satisfy the gate, so Artifact Inspector implementation review remains review_required until trusted runtime evidence exists.