Pick an option on each card and press Done; your answer goes straight
back to the session. The raiser's pick is marked. "I'm not sure" is a real answer.
1
In plain terms. Will you merge the review-bot rule that blocks sneaky full-price CI machines? Fede hasn't answered in two days; it's approved and ready, and only needs a person to read it and remove its safety hold. It's the last piece of this task.
The full question, as raised
PR #16994 (the code-review bot blocks any CI change that adds a full-price machine without an exception-list row) has waited ~2 days for Fede's yes in #agent-trinity with no reply. It is approved by claude[bot] at its latest commit (f5dd00f), mergeable, no failing checks, and held only by the dangerous-diff label, which any person can lift after reading the 34-line diff. Will you merge it yourself?
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Yes, I'll read it and merge it Everything else in Fede's emergencies-only ask is live: the CI exception-list check, the runtime guard and 24h emergency-switch alarm, Smith's #spending detector, the one-door runbook. This adds the reviewer as a second line of defence; it is 34 lines (one new lens file + three registrations), reviewed 🟢 three times, and the only thing missing is the human read the dangerous-diff floor requires. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Not decider-resolvable: the dangerous-diff floor on a PR that edits the reviewer's own rules requires a person to read and merge (b91259380's own note; decider lane audits f6f4a76a3, f38f729e7, f7155ae53 all ruled BLOCKED on exactly this). Raising to Gera because Fede, the person asked, has been silent ~2 days.
0af1d70b is parked on this.
Answered and withdrawn (5)
b91259380 Should the automatic code reviewer start blocking changes that quietly move a CI job onto a full-price machine without adding it to the approved exceptions list? Fede wants full-price machines for emergencies only; this change edits the reviewer's own rules, so a person has to read it and merge it. — answered: I'm not sure — go find out
b91264987 Should Smith's new daily check for full-price CI machines keep warning when one of its data sources goes quiet? Keeping it strict means some noisy days until we prove that source is retired; relaxing it means a real logging break could hide spending. — answered: Stay strict; prove the quiet source is retired before switching on
b91265008 Should Smith's daily warning about CI using full-price machines post in #spending or #alerts? Either way, once the exception list lands, it only fires on full-price use nobody approved, plus a daily total above 900 minutes. — answered: Post it in #spending
b91300949 Should someone refresh the code-review bot's accounts? They all read as out of budget, and the job that used to refresh them every 2 hours was removed last night, right after Fede changed them by hand — so no agent-smith change can be reviewed until a person decides. — answered: Leave it; reviews wait for the budget reset
b91342297 Should I swap one checklist item from a closed duplicate to the PR that actually landed the same fix? Swapping lets the task finish once the last real piece merges; leaving it means the task can never be marked done. — answered: Yes, swap it to the fix that actually landed