Files
gstack/test/fixtures/design-count-sep21-declared-first-call.json
T
Garry TanandOpenAI Codex 06ed920a97 v1.89.0.0 feat: add shared-code extraction audit (#2925)
* feat: bind shared-code review advice to source and branch

* feat: add shared-code extraction audit and scoped review checks

* test: recognize complete source reads and explicit coverage legends

* chore: bump version and changelog (v1.88.0.0)

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* test: capture native review questions and retain public evidence

Capture the actual first public native question with strict ownership and display matching. Preserve terminal failures and raw evidence, and retain SDK completion checks.

* test: recognize verified review evidence and complete fixtures

Recognize complete source and diagram evidence, concrete design and developer-experience decisions, and the complete planted scenario contracts. Preserve negative controls and grading thresholds.

* fix: preserve decision brief structure in native questions

Keep the required pros-and-cons heading and final Net field in native question text. Regenerate host outputs and document the release and evaluation repairs.

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* docs: update project documentation for v1.88.0.0

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* fix: correct eval retry accounting and ship workflow gates

* fix: capture native eval evidence and stabilize CI fixtures

* fix: keep shared-code eval skips read-only

Choose explicit no-change answers instead of mixed fix/preservation options.
Reuse the bounded revalidation prompt for path fixtures so required review
metadata is available without repeated discovery. Preserve source checks,
retry limits, and failed native terminal outcomes.

Add captured-question and callback regressions, plus evaluation selection
coverage for the affected fixtures.

---------

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>
2026-09-24 01:53:58 -04:00

42 lines
4.3 KiB
JSON

{
"provenance": {
"source": "September 21 final design-count diagnostic",
"runId": "shared-libs-design-final-sep21",
"sourceCallSha256": "a377c46b875e3c22841403a75aa088e363882249622a8351591c05e0bd7fb529"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "f88caf33-9daa-4975-b2be-584db7424e05",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KHwBM18zikG3ooKJQYyPo7",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Issue 1: Save has no visual primacy in the header action group\nProject/branch/task: main — account-settings form update reviewed against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: Four buttons sit in a row and all look the same. The person who just edited their email has to read every label to find the one that keeps their work. DESIGN.md already says Save is the only filled blue button and the other three are quiet ghost buttons, but the proposed form ignores that. Nothing else on the page tells them which action is the safe, expected one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users misclick Reset or Cancel next to Save and hit a discard dialog, or hesitate on every save; the header reads as noise rather than hierarchy.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already defines the exact tokens and the Button component already has both variants, so this is zero new design and restores the scan order (title → Save → status).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10, C=7/10\nPrinciple: Visual hierarchy is everything — if everything shouts, nothing is heard.\nNet: we are trading a one-token change for whether the page has a primary action at all.",
"header": "Issue 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A — Save filled primary, others ghost (Recommended)",
"description": "✅ Matches DESIGN.md exactly: Save #1d4ed8 with white text, Reset/Cancel/Export neutral ghost buttons, 44px targets unchanged. ✅ Reuses the existing Button variants; no new component or exploration (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). ❌ Export loses visual weight even though some users come only to download."
},
{
"label": "1B — Keep four identical buttons, rely on Save being first",
"description": "✅ Zero visual change to the current form; nothing to re-verify. ✅ Position still gives Save a mild advantage in tab order and scan order. ❌ Violates DESIGN.md and leaves the primary action indistinguishable at a glance, especially at 640px where all four are the same width."
},
{
"label": "1C — Save filled primary, Export outlined secondary, Reset/Cancel ghost",
"description": "✅ Gives Export a middle tier so download-only visitors still find it quickly. ✅ Save remains the single filled anchor, preserving the primary scan target. ❌ Introduces a third button tier DESIGN.md does not define, so it needs a new token and a DESIGN.md amendment (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Issue 1: Save has no visual primacy in the header action group\nProject/branch/task: main — account-settings form update reviewed against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: Four buttons sit in a row and all look the same. The person who just edited their email has to read every label to find the one that keeps their work. DESIGN.md already says Save is the only filled blue button and the other three are quiet ghost buttons, but the proposed form ignores that. Nothing else on the page tells them which action is the safe, expected one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users misclick Reset or Cancel next to Save and hit a discard dialog, or hesitate on every save; the header reads as noise rather than hierarchy.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already defines the exact tokens and the Button component already has both variants, so this is zero new design and restores the scan order (title → Save → status).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10, C=7/10\nPrinciple: Visual hierarchy is everything — if everything shouts, nothing is heard.\nNet: we are trading a one-token change for whether the page has a primary action at all.": "1A — Save filled primary, others ghost (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T17:39:30.327Z"
}
]
}