On Morrison-Lab/ai-config#2522, the review workflow posted a comment that references analysis it never included.
The whole posted body (1532 characters, comment, run 33159592591) is a follow-up section about check-pr-fully-clean.py's exit status, ending:
No check has failed, and the diff has no content defects (verified above against the real external PR data). My verdict stands unchanged:
There is no "above". No summary, no verification section, no findings list -- the comment opens on the instrument re-run. "My verdict stands unchanged" refers to a verdict that was never posted.
It is not an edit: created_at and updated_at are both 2026-08-28T09:34:40Z, and no other comment or formal review exists on the PR. Every job in the run reports success, including post-review, so nothing is red.
Two things point at the same mechanism -- the posted comment being the tail of the assistant's output rather than the whole review:
- The body starts mid-argument, at what reads as the last section of a longer message.
- It ends with
**Stopping Page**: Clean stopping point reached -- review posted, no findings, no PR state left to act on in this run. That is a session-recap convention from the reviewing agent's own instruction corpus, not review content. Its presence in a CI-posted comment is the signature of a harness taking the final assistant message.
That failure mode is already documented, in the corpus this workflow loads as a plugin: shared/workflow/flag-session-boundaries.md records d-morrison/rme#1081, where installing the corpus made every prose reply collapse to a one-line stopping-point declaration, because the harness posts the last assistant message. This looks like the same mechanism catching a longer tail rather than only the declaration.
Consequence: the verdict is clean, dated, and names the correct head, so check-pr-fully-clean.py passes it -- but a reader cannot see what was reviewed, and the comment's own text advertises that something is missing. Same family as #709: the check color and the SHA are right, and the account of the work is not.
Worth checking whether post-review concatenates the assistant's turn or takes one message, and whether the reviewing prompt should suppress the stopping-point convention, which belongs to interactive sessions rather than to a CI comment.
On Morrison-Lab/ai-config#2522, the review workflow posted a comment that references analysis it never included.
The whole posted body (1532 characters, comment, run 33159592591) is a follow-up section about
check-pr-fully-clean.py's exit status, ending:There is no "above". No summary, no verification section, no findings list -- the comment opens on the instrument re-run. "My verdict stands unchanged" refers to a verdict that was never posted.
It is not an edit:
created_atandupdated_atare both2026-08-28T09:34:40Z, and no other comment or formal review exists on the PR. Every job in the run reportssuccess, includingpost-review, so nothing is red.Two things point at the same mechanism -- the posted comment being the tail of the assistant's output rather than the whole review:
**Stopping Page**: Clean stopping point reached -- review posted, no findings, no PR state left to act on in this run.That is a session-recap convention from the reviewing agent's own instruction corpus, not review content. Its presence in a CI-posted comment is the signature of a harness taking the final assistant message.That failure mode is already documented, in the corpus this workflow loads as a plugin:
shared/workflow/flag-session-boundaries.mdrecordsd-morrison/rme#1081, where installing the corpus made every prose reply collapse to a one-line stopping-point declaration, because the harness posts the last assistant message. This looks like the same mechanism catching a longer tail rather than only the declaration.Consequence: the verdict is clean, dated, and names the correct head, so
check-pr-fully-clean.pypasses it -- but a reader cannot see what was reviewed, and the comment's own text advertises that something is missing. Same family as #709: the check color and the SHA are right, and the account of the work is not.Worth checking whether
post-reviewconcatenates the assistant's turn or takes one message, and whether the reviewing prompt should suppress the stopping-point convention, which belongs to interactive sessions rather than to a CI comment.