claude-code
  • Joined on 2026-10-05
claude-code created pull request mi/werkrevisor#58 2026-10-08 19:19:17 +02:00
WIP: a diagram shows how a pull request gets merged with werkrevisor
claude-code commented on pull request mi/werkrevisor#57 2026-10-08 19:02:14 +02:00
werkrevisor 0.27.1: the dashboard counts pull requests per period and shows their trend

Fixed: billed calls before the service recorded reviews are costs too, so the chart keeps them; the comment, the README, the PR document and the Werkbaum now say "the oldest period with reviews or…

claude-code created pull request mi/werkrevisor#57 2026-10-08 18:55:32 +02:00
WIP: werkrevisor 0.27.1: the dashboard counts pull requests per period and shows their trend
claude-code commented on pull request mi/werkrevisor#56 2026-10-08 18:29:27 +02:00
werkrevisor 0.27.0: the operator chooses the OpenRouter providers of the model

Fixed: the Non-Goal now names the reason: the excerpt selection uses GPT-6 Luna, whose calls did not hang in the measurement.

claude-code created pull request mi/werkrevisor#56 2026-10-08 18:00:45 +02:00
WIP: werkrevisor 0.27.0: the operator chooses the OpenRouter providers of the model
claude-code commented on pull request mi/werkrevisor#55 2026-10-08 17:22:46 +02:00
the diagrams show how a review runs today

Fixed: judging the findings and combining risks and findings are now steps 8 and 9 of their own, after the coverage check, in the order of the diagram.

claude-code commented on pull request mi/werkrevisor#55 2026-10-08 17:22:45 +02:00
the diagrams show how a review runs today

Fixed: judging the findings and combining risks and findings are now steps 8 and 9 of their own, after the coverage check, in the order of the diagram.

claude-code created pull request mi/werkrevisor#55 2026-10-08 17:18:46 +02:00
WIP: the diagrams show how a review runs today
claude-code commented on pull request mi/werkrevisor#54 2026-10-08 17:15:20 +02:00
werkrevisor 0.26.0: a change that can corrupt persisted data needs a human

Fixed: the sentence now names the number of pull requests, as the Werkbaum node does.

claude-code commented on pull request mi/werkrevisor#54 2026-10-08 17:11:49 +02:00
werkrevisor 0.26.0: a change that can corrupt persisted data needs a human

A question without "?" never passed: the pattern always needs the question mark. But a new test showed a real gap: after the "?" it allowed several sentences. The pattern now allows exactly one…

claude-code commented on pull request mi/werkrevisor#54 2026-10-08 17:03:56 +02:00
werkrevisor 0.26.0: a change that can corrupt persisted data needs a human

Fixed: Additional Changes now also name the planned node that keeps MiniMax M3 within its timeout.

claude-code commented on pull request mi/werkrevisor#54 2026-10-08 17:03:55 +02:00
werkrevisor 0.26.0: a change that can corrupt persisted data needs a human

Fixed: the class is before the __main__ block now. tests/test_doccheck.py and tests/test_risk_with_issue.py had the same mistake from PR#50 and PR#53 and are fixed too; a direct run of each…

claude-code commented on pull request mi/werkrevisor#54 2026-10-08 17:00:38 +02:00
werkrevisor 0.26.0: a change that can corrupt persisted data needs a human

Fixed: the check is strict again. A question must end with "?", or with "?" and exactly one sentence that delimits it, as the measured question of data_correction does; a sentence without a…

claude-code created pull request mi/werkrevisor#54 2026-10-08 16:57:26 +02:00
WIP: werkrevisor 0.26.0: a change that can corrupt persisted data needs a human
claude-code created pull request mi/werkrevisor#53 2026-10-08 16:29:54 +02:00
WIP: werkrevisor 0.25.0: a high risk and a confirmed finding of the same category give RED
claude-code commented on pull request mi/werkrevisor#52 2026-10-08 16:27:18 +02:00
the plan of werkrevisor as a Werkbaum in the repository

Fixed: the node is [^] now, and the legend says that [^] means live on mih09 or in use, which covers a plan in the repository.

claude-code created pull request mi/werkrevisor#52 2026-10-08 16:25:13 +02:00
WIP: the plan of werkrevisor as a Werkbaum in the repository
claude-code commented on pull request mi/werkrevisor#51 2026-10-08 16:16:35 +02:00
werkrevisor 0.24.0: a high risk and a confirmed finding in the same file give RED; the review times its phases

No wait time was hidden: the entry was dropped only when no PR document was judged, i.e. without a Jev call; the other phases are entered only when they call a service. To make that explicit, the…

claude-code commented on pull request mi/werkrevisor#51 2026-10-08 16:16:34 +02:00
werkrevisor 0.24.0: a high risk and a confirmed finding in the same file give RED; the review times its phases

Fixed: the Problem section now says that this PR implements the rule for the same file, and the Non-Goals exclude RED for the same category in different files.

claude-code created pull request mi/werkrevisor#51 2026-10-08 16:09:56 +02:00
WIP: werkrevisor 0.24.0: a high risk and a confirmed finding in the same file give RED; the review times its phases