fix: keep template model registry fresh

[stranske]

Summary

• sync consumer template model registry metadata with the canonical root registry
• align the template LLM slot defaults with the non-ossifying root slot config
• add a regression proving template defaults pass the freshness gate on 2026-06-30

Validation

• python3 -m pytest tests/test_check_model_registry_freshness.py -q
• python3 scripts/validate_template_sync.py
• python3 scripts/validate_template_completeness.py
• git diff --check
• python3 tools/check_model_registry_freshness.py --registry templates/consumer-repo/config/model_registry.json --slots templates/consumer-repo/config/llm_slots.json --today 2026-06-30 --json

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Updated the consumer template’s model and slot configuration to reflect the latest approved settings and review dates.
  • Switched one model entry to a different provider for improved consistency.

• Tests

  • Added coverage to verify the consumer template’s registry settings remain valid and up to date.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: d0c1180a-d23e-4a0d-9149-6a7321f1e504

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5afdb2a and 7ba57f5.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• templates/consumer-repo/config/llm_slots.json
• templates/consumer-repo/config/model_registry.json
• tests/test_check_model_registry_freshness.py

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Updates the consumer-repo template configs: slot2 in llm_slots.json switches from a model name to quality_tier: "T5", codex-mini-latest provider changes from openai to github-models in model_registry.json, registry metadata dates are refreshed, and a new pytest test verifies the template defaults pass the freshness gate as of 2026-06-30.

Changes

Consumer Template Config and Freshness Validation

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Template config updates templates/consumer-repo/config/llm_slots.json, templates/consumer-repo/config/model_registry.json	slot2 switches from model: "claude-sonnet-4-6" to quality_tier: "T5"; codex-mini-latest provider changed from openai to github-models; registry last_updated, review_interval_days, and review_by updated.
Freshness gate regression test tests/test_check_model_registry_freshness.py	New test test_consumer_template_registry_defaults_are_fresh loads the template configs and asserts gate.evaluate returns no findings for today=2026-06-30.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• stranske/Workflows#2709: Adds the model-registry freshness gate tool and broader unit/integration tests using the same gate.evaluate pattern against model_registry.json and llm_slots.json.
• stranske/Workflows#2718: Overlaps on freshness gate work around quality_tier normalization and related registry/slot handling in the same files.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly summarizes the main change: refreshing the template model registry metadata.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch codex/fix-template-model-registry-freshness

---

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

[stranske-keepalive]

Workflow source needed

PR #2719 needs either a linked GitHub issue or one valid non-issue Workflow Source before PR metadata automation can manage it safely.

Please do one of:

• Add <!-- meta:issue:123 --> or a normal Closes #123 / Related to #123 line.
• Check one Workflow Source option in the PR body.
• Add a hidden marker such as <!-- workflow-source:local_request -->, <!-- workflow-source:manual_remote -->, <!-- workflow-source:review_followup -->, <!-- workflow-source:sync_campaign -->, or <!-- workflow-source:dependabot -->.
• Add a workflow source label such as workflow:source-direct-pr, workflow:source-local-request, workflow:source-review-followup, workflow:source-sync, or workflow:no-automation.

Once a valid source is present, this warning will not be reposted.

[stranske-keepalive]

Automated Status Summary

Head SHA: 65e9def
Latest Runs: ⏳ pending — Gate
Required contexts: Gate / gate, Health 45 Agents Guard / guard
Required: core tests (3.12): ⏳ pending, core tests (3.13): ⏳ pending, docker smoke: ⏳ pending, gate: ⏳ pending

Workflow / Job	Result	Logs
(no jobs reported)	⏳ pending	—

Coverage Overview

• Coverage history entries: 1

Coverage Trend

Metric	Value
Current	75.67%
Baseline	85.00%
Delta	-9.33%
Minimum	70.00%
Status	✅ Pass

Top Coverage Hotspots (lowest coverage)

File	Coverage	Missing
scripts/issue_dedup_smoke.py	0.0%	4
scripts/runner_lib/__main__.py	0.0%	3
scripts/validate_template_sync.py	0.0%	77
scripts/langchain/topic_splitter.py	19.1%	57
tools/codex_log_analyzer.py	19.6%	140
scripts/repo_review_round2_runner.py	25.1%	344
scripts/prune_agent_stubs.py	39.7%	26
scripts/repo_review_round1_runner.py	40.7%	133
tools/ensure_workflow_timeout_variables.py	42.1%	74
scripts/sync_label_docs.py	42.9%	64
tools/ci_failure_triage.py	44.2%	123
scripts/repo_review_backlog_scan.py	45.3%	116
scripts/repo_review_body_writer.py	46.5%	86
tools/codex_session_analyzer.py	47.9%	59
scripts/create_verifier_labels.py	48.3%	58

Low Coverage Files (<50.0%)

File	Coverage	Missing
scripts/issue_dedup_smoke.py	0.0%	4
scripts/runner_lib/__main__.py	0.0%	3
scripts/validate_template_sync.py	0.0%	77
scripts/langchain/topic_splitter.py	19.1%	57
tools/codex_log_analyzer.py	19.6%	140
scripts/repo_review_round2_runner.py	25.1%	344
scripts/prune_agent_stubs.py	39.7%	26
scripts/repo_review_round1_runner.py	40.7%	133
tools/ensure_workflow_timeout_variables.py	42.1%	74
scripts/sync_label_docs.py	42.9%	64
tools/ci_failure_triage.py	44.2%	123
scripts/repo_review_backlog_scan.py	45.3%	116
scripts/repo_review_body_writer.py	46.5%	86
tools/codex_session_analyzer.py	47.9%	59
scripts/create_verifier_labels.py	48.3%	58

Updated automatically; will refresh on subsequent CI/Docker completions.

---

Keepalive checklist

Scope

No scope information available

Tasks

• No tasks defined

Acceptance criteria

• No acceptance criteria defined

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 2abb41adb4

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Avoid resolving the Anthropic slot to Opus

With this template, any consumer/new repo that has an Anthropic token and uses the default slot config no longer uses the documented Sonnet compare-mode default: load_slot_config() resolves a slot that has quality_tier but no model via select_model_for_tier(), and the current registry rates claude-opus-4-6 higher on T5 than claude-sonnet-4-6 while also marking Opus very expensive. I verified the templated config loads as SlotDefinition(... model='claude-opus-4-6'), so this silently shifts verifier/compare traffic to the most expensive Anthropic model rather than just avoiding a dominated-pin freshness finding.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.