timothyandClaude Opus 5
f822e4737c
PR Gates / CI image pin matches docker/ci (pull_request) Successful in 14s
PR Gates / Docs update reminder (pull_request) Successful in 34s
Build ErsatzTV Image / API docs in sync (OpenAPI + endpoint index) (pull_request) Successful in 40s
Review verdict / Set review-verdict status (pull_request_target) Successful in 8s
PR Gates / decisions lifecycle (pull_request) Successful in 23s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Formatting (changed .cs conform to .editorconfig) (pull_request) Successful in 24s
PR Gates / Script tests (pytest) (pull_request) Successful in 1m52s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Functional E2E (curl + UI contracts) (pull_request) Successful in 6m13s
Build ErsatzTV Image / EF migration integrity (SQLite + MySql) (pull_request) Successful in 19m29s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Build & test (.NET) (pull_request) Successful in 21m25s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Build & push image (amd64) (pull_request) Skipped
review-verdict/h10 Review-verdict: MERGEABLE @ f822e47 (base: main)
Round 3 returned MERGEABLE with three LOW documentation findings. Batched before posting the verdict, since a new sha voids both the CI run and the verdict. - `ci-cd.md` labelled the unprobed half of the `enable_push` bullet but stated the `block_admin_merge_override` counterfactual flatly one bullet below — the same measured-vs-attested flattening round 2 fixed, one site over. Now labelled, with why it was not probed (verifying it means merging an unreviewed PR). - `release.verdict-status-check` said "what survives is the forgery list above". That record's job is enumerating survivors, so an unqualified "what survives is X" reads as exhaustive — and it omitted the admin residual, which is a SKIP route rather than a forgery one. Added. - `CLAUDE.md` never learned the rule. It is the always-read surface, and it still framed a direct `git push origin main` as a live path while describing a docs-only *push* exemption for a push the server now refuses. My corpus sweep covered `docs/` and missed the file that carries the docs-update rule. Note on what remains unverified rather than closed: neither direction of `block_admin_merge_override` was measured, and whether Gitea treats an ABSENT required context as blocking (versus satisfied) is asserted by our docs but not proven — the combined status on this PR reads `success` with `review-verdict/h10` absent. Both belong to #747's re-verification sweep. Verification: 441/441 script tests; decisions-validate OK. refs #743 Decisions-Edit: yes Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>