fix: retain ignored llm registry tier parameter

[stranske]

Fixes the Ruff ARG001 failure propagated by consumer sync PRs. The public tier keyword remains accepted for compatibility while model selection is profile-based.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved model selection compatibility while preserving existing profile-based model resolution.

[cursor]

Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed.

Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs.

[stranske-keepalive]

Workflow source needed

PR #2837 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.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.

Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.

Next review available in: 52 minutes

Your organization has reached its usage spending cap. Adjust your spending cap in the billing tab.

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: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 3a25f9b3-88ab-4f99-a3e5-a64aee1f9fae

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c44076c and 0d0cd08.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• tests/tools/test_llm_registry_selection.py
• tools/llm_registry.py

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

configured_model_for_provider now explicitly discards its compatibility tier parameter while continuing to use profile-based model selection.

Changes

Provider model selection

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Discard compatibility tier templates/consumer-repo/tools/llm_registry.py	configured_model_for_provider deletes the unused tier parameter without changing the profile-based selection flow.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• stranske/Workflows#2810: Updates the same resolver to discard the compatibility tier parameter and includes related test coverage.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately reflects retaining the tier parameter while ignoring it in the LLM registry.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
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 unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/llm-registry-tier-ruff

---

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

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@templates/consumer-repo/tools/llm_registry.py`:
- Around line 291-292: Add regression coverage for configured_model_for_provider
that passes tier while selecting by profile, asserting the same profile-driven
model is returned for different tier values. Keep the compatibility keyword
accepted and verify tier does not affect model selection.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: fc59e3aa-4922-429d-a237-0d178d4301b9

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d362a6c and c44076c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• templates/consumer-repo/tools/llm_registry.py

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c44076cb22

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".

[agents-workflows-bot]

Automated Status Summary

Head SHA: dc1773b
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	75.90%
Baseline	85.00%
Delta	-9.10%
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%	81
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/discover_model_catalog.py	44.8%	55
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%	81
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/discover_model_catalog.py	44.8%	55
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