Repository navigation
chore(agents-state): flip mctl-openclaw/upgrade-to-2026-4-27 to rejected - #97
Conversation
PR mctlhq/mctl-openclaw#15 was opened by the implementer on 2026-04-30 and closed without merge later that day after a P2 codex finding. The status.yaml was never flipped from `in-progress` — manual cleanup (showed up in today's daily-pipeline review as a stale in-progress entry). Future improvement: shepherd should detect `pr.state == CLOSED && !pr.merged` and flip to `rejected` automatically. Out of scope for this commit.
|
@codex review |
|
@copilot review |
Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/mctlhq/mctl-gitops/sessions/85783bee-d69b-4707-bd77-15b4efaccba4 Co-authored-by: mashkovd <1842423+mashkovd@users.noreply.github.com>
One schema issue found and fixed (057b034): the original commit used |
![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: b0ef550fc5
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".
| status: rejected | ||
| updated_at: '2026-05-02T09:10:00Z' | ||
| updated_by: operator | ||
| note: | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
note field to notes in rejected status
This change introduces a schema inconsistency by writing note: instead of notes: for a rejected proposal. The shepherd requirements explicitly define closed-without-merge transitions as status: rejected plus a notes: field (platform-gitops/agents-state/mctl-agents/proposals/tier3-pr-shepherd/requirements.md, lines 83-85), and existing rejected status files in this repo also use notes:. Keeping note: here risks downstream tooling/reporting silently missing the rejection reason.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🚀 ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
Summary
Follow-up (out of scope here)
Test plan