🛡️ Sentinel: [MEDIUM] 보안 헤더 누락 수정 by seonghobae · Pull Request #56 · ContextualWisdomLab/clearfolio

seonghobae · 2026-06-29T15:20:55Z

🚨 Severity: MEDIUM
💡 Vulnerability: 보안 헤더 누락 (X-XSS-Protection, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options)
🎯 Impact: 해당 헤더가 없을 경우 애플리케이션은 XSS, Clickjacking, 중간자 공격 등에 취약해집니다.
🔧 Fix: ViewerSecurityHeadersWebFilter.java 에 누락된 보안 헤더를 추가했습니다.
✅ Verification: 유닛 테스트를 통해 헤더가 올바르게 추가되는지 검증했습니다.

PR created automatically by Jules for task 17982515168884998647 started by @seonghobae

🚨 Severity: MEDIUM 💡 Vulnerability: 보안 헤더 누락 (X-XSS-Protection, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options) 🎯 Impact: 해당 헤더가 없을 경우 애플리케이션은 XSS, Clickjacking, 중간자 공격 등에 취약해집니다. 🔧 Fix: ViewerSecurityHeadersWebFilter.java 에 누락된 보안 헤더를 추가했습니다. ✅ Verification: 유닛 테스트를 통해 헤더가 올바르게 추가되는지 검증했습니다.

google-labs-jules · 2026-06-29T15:20:57Z

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

opencode-agent

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head evidence but cannot approve because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Findings

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

Problem: The OpenCode approval path reached an APPROVE control result while the separate coverage-evidence job result was failure.
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE.
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head a6443722482a0ee6979b408079bba1d239d2f15a.
Head SHA: a6443722482a0ee6979b408079bba1d239d2f15a
Workflow run: 28382920619
Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Evidence

Head SHA: a6443722482a0ee6979b408079bba1d239d2f15a
Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.

Python test coverage

============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/clearfolio/clearfolio
configfile: pyproject.toml
collected 0 items

============================ no tests ran in 0.09s =============================
/home/runner/.local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/coverage/control.py:956: CoverageWarning: No data was collected. (no-data-collected); see https://coverage.readthedocs.io/en/7.14.2/messages.html#warning-no-data-collected
  self._warn("No data was collected.", slug="no-data-collected")

Result: FAIL (exit 5)

Python coverage report

No data to report.

Result: FAIL (exit 1)

Python docstring coverage advisory

RESULT: PASSED (minimum: 80.0%, actual: 100.0%)

Result: PASS

Coverage Decision

Result: FAIL
Test evidence: not proven passing
Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
Failure count: 2

Change Flow DAG

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

opencode-agent · 2026-06-29T15:56:15Z

OpenCode Review Overview

Head SHA: 7dbd4de43418a30ff57085e85d6a8404ad4e6602
Workflow run: 28863012445
Workflow attempt: 2
Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was cancelled, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
Reason: coverage-evidence result was cancelled, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 7dbd4de43418a30ff57085e85d6a8404ad4e6602.
Head SHA: 7dbd4de43418a30ff57085e85d6a8404ad4e6602
Workflow run: 28863012445
Workflow attempt: 2

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

🚨 Severity: MEDIUM 💡 Vulnerability: 보안 헤더 누락 (X-XSS-Protection, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options) 🎯 Impact: 해당 헤더가 없을 경우 애플리케이션은 XSS, Clickjacking, 중간자 공격 등에 취약해집니다. 🔧 Fix: ViewerSecurityHeadersWebFilter.java 에 누락된 보안 헤더를 추가했습니다. ✅ Verification: 유닛 테스트를 통해 헤더가 올바르게 추가되는지 검증했습니다.

opencode-agent

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head evidence but cannot approve because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Findings

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

Problem: The OpenCode approval path reached an APPROVE control result while the separate coverage-evidence job result was failure.
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE.
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head e2f38b4e81a28da775a09dd4f8e3de3a8dd74e19.
Head SHA: e2f38b4e81a28da775a09dd4f8e3de3a8dd74e19
Workflow run: 28388630720
Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Evidence

Head SHA: e2f38b4e81a28da775a09dd4f8e3de3a8dd74e19
Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.

Python test coverage

============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/clearfolio/clearfolio
configfile: pyproject.toml
collected 0 items

============================ no tests ran in 0.09s =============================
/home/runner/.local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/coverage/control.py:956: CoverageWarning: No data was collected. (no-data-collected); see https://coverage.readthedocs.io/en/7.14.2/messages.html#warning-no-data-collected
  self._warn("No data was collected.", slug="no-data-collected")

Result: FAIL (exit 5)

Python coverage report

No data to report.

Result: FAIL (exit 1)

Python docstring coverage advisory

RESULT: PASSED (minimum: 80.0%, actual: 100.0%)

Result: PASS

Coverage Decision

Result: FAIL
Test evidence: not proven passing
Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
Failure count: 2

Change Flow DAG

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

seonghobae · 2026-07-07T10:31:38Z

정리(중복): 이 PR의 목적인 뷰어 보안 헤더는 현재 main의 ViewerSecurityHeadersWebFilter에 이미 구현되어 있습니다(CSP frame-ancestors 설정 가능, X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff 등). 본 브랜치는 DIRTY(병합 불가)이고 8일 이상 정체되어 중복 PR 정리 방침에 따라 닫습니다. 필요 시 재오픈 가능합니다.

google-labs-jules · 2026-07-07T10:34:50Z

정리(중복): 이 PR의 목적인 뷰어 보안 헤더는 현재 main의 ViewerSecurityHeadersWebFilter에 이미 구현되어 있습니다(CSP frame-ancestors 설정 가능, X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff 등). 본 브랜치는 DIRTY(병합 불가)이고 8일 이상 정체되어 중복 PR 정리 방침에 따라 닫습니다. 필요 시 재오픈 가능합니다.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task.

Merge current main and restrict the change set to the viewer security filter and its test. Adds missing HTTP security response headers on the viewer surface: X-Frame-Options (SAMEORIGIN/DENY from frame-ancestors), Strict-Transport-Security, and X-XSS-Protection: 0. Bringing the branch up to date with main drops the stale, untested scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py from the change set, so the central coverage-evidence gate reports "not applicable" (no changed Python/JS sources or supported manifests) instead of running pytest with zero collected tests. Also drops the stray project-wide JaCoCo 100% bundle gate that failed on pre-existing uncovered code unrelated to this fix. mvn -q verify is green (viewer security filter test passes 4/4). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01RjGVapDZ3k7V7zKYk16P4C

seonghobae · 2026-07-07T11:36:16Z

재정리: Jules 봇이 직전 코멘트에서 "this work is now obsolete, stopping work on this task"로 중복/폐기에 동의했습니다. 봇 응답 과정에서 자동 재오픈된 것으로 보여, 봇 자신의 결론과 일치하게 다시 닫습니다. (보안 헤더는 main ViewerSecurityHeadersWebFilter에 이미 존재.) 재차 열릴 경우 오너 판단에 맡깁니다.

seonghobae · 2026-07-07T11:45:45Z

Rebased onto current main so the diff is limited to the viewer security filter + its test (X-Frame-Options/HSTS/X-XSS-Protection), which clears the coverage-evidence gate that was tripping on a stale untested CI script; mvn -q verify is green.

google-labs-jules · 2026-07-07T11:49:45Z

재정리: Jules 봇이 직전 코멘트에서 "this work is now obsolete, stopping work on this task"로 중복/폐기에 동의했습니다. 봇 응답 과정에서 자동 재오픈된 것으로 보여, 봇 자신의 결론과 일치하게 다시 닫습니다. (보안 헤더는 main ViewerSecurityHeadersWebFilter에 이미 존재.) 재차 열릴 경우 오너 판단에 맡깁니다.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task. I will not reopen the pull request.

github-actions

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was cancelled, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
Reason: coverage-evidence result was cancelled, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 7dbd4de43418a30ff57085e85d6a8404ad4e6602.
Head SHA: 7dbd4de43418a30ff57085e85d6a8404ad4e6602
Workflow run: 28863012445
Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

github-actions

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was cancelled, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
Reason: coverage-evidence result was cancelled, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 7dbd4de43418a30ff57085e85d6a8404ad4e6602.
Head SHA: 7dbd4de43418a30ff57085e85d6a8404ad4e6602
Workflow run: 28863811161
Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

github-actions

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was cancelled, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
Reason: coverage-evidence result was cancelled, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 7dbd4de43418a30ff57085e85d6a8404ad4e6602.
Head SHA: 7dbd4de43418a30ff57085e85d6a8404ad4e6602
Workflow run: 28863012445
Workflow attempt: 2

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

…tests The OpenCode coverage-evidence gate runs pytest at the repo root and had no main()/load_json() coverage, leaving the CLI path (argument parsing, file IO, exit codes) unexercised. Add end-to-end tests driving main() with real temp SBOM/policy files, asserting exit code 0 for a clean SBOM, exit code 2 for license violations and for --require-no-review blocking a review component, and that the summary file is written. Raises scripts/check_sbom_license_policy.py line coverage from 76% to 98%; pytest now collects 9 tests with coverage data. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01RTAMs4bpSZS77Xe3RQjv9P

seonghobae · 2026-07-08T01:52:28Z

Coverage-evidence blocker addressed

The coverage-evidence job runs python3 -m coverage run -m pytest && coverage report --show-missing at the repo root. On the earlier failing heads the only Python source was scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py with no pytest test, so pytest collected 0 items (exit 5) and coverage had no data (exit 1) — that was the blocker.

At the current head the Python surface is scripts/check_sbom_license_policy.py (which now has a test), and I strengthened that suite:

Added end-to-end tests for the CLI entrypoint main() and load_json() — driving real temp SBOM/policy files and asserting exit 0 for a clean SBOM, exit 2 for a license violation and for --require-no-review blocking a review-required component, plus that the --summary file is written.
These are meaningful (verified by mutation: flipping the exit-code logic makes the new tests fail).

Verified locally with the exact CI command:

collected 9 items ... 9 passed
scripts/check_sbom_license_policy.py   62   1   98%   (was 76%)
TOTAL 134 2 99%   EXIT=0

Note on scope: this PR's actual change is Java (ViewerSecurityHeadersWebFilter security headers, already covered by ViewerSecurityHeadersWebFilterTest). The coverage-evidence gate is Python-only and does not measure the Java slice — it just needs the repo's tracked Python to be collectible with coverage data, which it now robustly is. The prior REQUEST_CHANGES reviews were from older heads / coverage runs cancelled by concurrency, not a code defect at the current head.

google-labs-jules · 2026-07-08T01:57:41Z

Coverage-evidence blocker addressed

The coverage-evidence job runs python3 -m coverage run -m pytest && coverage report --show-missing at the repo root. On the earlier failing heads the only Python source was scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py with no pytest test, so pytest collected 0 items (exit 5) and coverage had no data (exit 1) — that was the blocker.

At the current head the Python surface is scripts/check_sbom_license_policy.py (which now has a test), and I strengthened that suite:

Added end-to-end tests for the CLI entrypoint main() and load_json() — driving real temp SBOM/policy files and asserting exit 0 for a clean SBOM, exit 2 for a license violation and for --require-no-review blocking a review-required component, plus that the --summary file is written.

These are meaningful (verified by mutation: flipping the exit-code logic makes the new tests fail).

Verified locally with the exact CI command:
collected 9 items ... 9 passed
scripts/check_sbom_license_policy.py   62   1   98%   (was 76%)
TOTAL 134 2 99%   EXIT=0
Note on scope: this PR's actual change is Java (ViewerSecurityHeadersWebFilter security headers, already covered by ViewerSecurityHeadersWebFilterTest). The coverage-evidence gate is Python-only and does not measure the Java slice — it just needs the repo's tracked Python to be collectible with coverage data, which it now robustly is. The prior REQUEST_CHANGES reviews were from older heads / coverage runs cancelled by concurrency, not a code defect at the current head.

Acknowledged. Thank you for fixing the Python coverage issue that was blocking the CI.

opencode-agent Bot requested changes Jun 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

seonghobae added 2 commits June 29, 2026 17:48

🛡️ Sentinel: [MEDIUM] 보안 헤더 누락 수정

03e5cb6

🛡️ Sentinel: [MEDIUM] 보안 헤더 누락 수정

86b69e9

seonghobae enabled auto-merge (squash) July 7, 2026 01:28

seonghobae closed this Jul 7, 2026

auto-merge was automatically disabled July 7, 2026 10:31
Pull request was closed

seonghobae reopened this Jul 7, 2026

seonghobae closed this Jul 7, 2026

seonghobae reopened this Jul 7, 2026

seonghobae enabled auto-merge (squash) July 7, 2026 11:48

github-actions Bot requested changes Jul 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

seonghobae closed this Jul 7, 2026

auto-merge was automatically disabled July 7, 2026 14:02
Pull request was closed

seonghobae reopened this Jul 7, 2026

seonghobae enabled auto-merge (squash) July 7, 2026 14:11

github-actions Bot requested changes Jul 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot requested changes Jul 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

🛡️ Sentinel: [MEDIUM] 보안 헤더 누락 수정

5d8d9e2

Uh oh!

Conversation

seonghobae commented Jun 29, 2026

Uh oh!

google-labs-jules Bot commented Jun 29, 2026

Uh oh!

opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Findings

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

Coverage evidence

Coverage Evidence

Python test coverage

Python coverage report

Python docstring coverage advisory

Coverage Decision

Change Flow DAG

Uh oh!

opencode-agent Bot commented Jun 29, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

OpenCode Review Overview

Pull request overview

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

Coverage evidence

Changed-File Evidence Map

Uh oh!

opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Findings

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

Coverage evidence

Coverage Evidence

Python test coverage

Python coverage report

Python docstring coverage advisory

Coverage Decision

Change Flow DAG

Uh oh!

seonghobae commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

google-labs-jules Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

seonghobae commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

seonghobae commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

google-labs-jules Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

Coverage evidence

Changed-File Evidence Map

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

Coverage evidence

Changed-File Evidence Map

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

Coverage evidence

Changed-File Evidence Map

Uh oh!

seonghobae commented Jul 8, 2026

Coverage-evidence blocker addressed

Uh oh!

google-labs-jules Bot commented Jul 8, 2026

Coverage-evidence blocker addressed

opencode-agent Bot commented Jun 29, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading