docs(agents): code-owner gates disabled org-wide until multiple maintainers exist

[seonghobae]

Records the 2026-08-04 org policy in AGENTS.md: code-owner review requirements are disabled everywhere (solo maintainer cannot satisfy them). ON HOLD until the org has multiple maintainers — do not re-enable.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 1 minute

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 6ad49a82-ae9a-4037-af4c-aaf6fb7f4c44

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3f65dbe and bced861.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• AGENTS.md
• requirements-strix-ci-hashes.txt
• requirements-strix-ci.txt

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[seonghobae]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Action performed

Review finished.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[seonghobae]

@coderabbitai approve

[coderabbitai]

✅ Action performed

Comments resolved. Approval is disabled; enable reviews.request_changes_workflow to allow explicit top-level @coderabbitai resolve or @coderabbitai approve commands.

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode could not approve from deterministic current-head evidence because GitHub Checks have failed.

Findings

1. HIGH Current-head GitHub Checks - Fix failed required checks before approval

• Problem: Failed same-head checks remain for 9fb4e161f80e68e76880960245f15f2323da5729.
• Root cause: The model-unavailable evidence fallback is allowed only when peer GitHub Checks are complete and clean.
• Fix: Read and fix the failed check logs below, then rerun the current-head checks.
• Regression test: Keep the model-unavailable fallback gated on an empty failed-check rollup.

Failed checks:

• Python Security/pip-audit (Python dependency audit): FAILURE (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/30878132550/job/91896163965)
• Strix Security Scan/strix: FAILURE (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/30878131167/job/91893621241)
• Strix Security Scan/strix: failure (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/30878131167/job/91893621241)
• pip-audit (Python dependency audit) check run: failure (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/30878132550/job/91896163965)

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 9fb4e161f80e68e76880960245f15f2323da5729
• Workflow run: 30881520838
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode could not approve from deterministic current-head evidence because GitHub Checks have failed.

Findings

1. HIGH Current-head GitHub Checks - Fix failed required checks before approval

• Problem: Failed same-head checks remain for 9fb4e161f80e68e76880960245f15f2323da5729.
• Root cause: The model-unavailable evidence fallback is allowed only when peer GitHub Checks are complete and clean.
• Fix: Read and fix the failed check logs below, then rerun the current-head checks.
• Regression test: Keep the model-unavailable fallback gated on an empty failed-check rollup.

Failed checks:

• Python Security/pip-audit (Python dependency audit): FAILURE (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/30878132550/job/91896163965)
• Strix Security Scan/strix: FAILURE (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/30878131167/job/91893621241)
• Strix Security Scan/strix: failure (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/30878131167/job/91893621241)
• pip-audit (Python dependency audit) check run: failure (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/30878132550/job/91896163965)

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

Closing as superseded by clean one-file PR #740. #740 preserves the intended code-owner policy note while excluding the unrelated Strix requirement and hash-lock changes accumulated on this branch.

[seonghobae]

Closing this documentation-only hold PR to keep the active queue actionable. The policy remains: do not re-enable code-owner gates while the organization has a single maintainer. Recreate a current-main PR only when a second independent maintainer exists and the ruleset can actually satisfy that gate.