[Discover] Flyout system POC#18
Closed
akowalska622 wants to merge 17 commits into
Closed
Conversation
…' into discover-flyout-system-poc
tsullivan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 30, 2026
## Summary Closes elastic#254714 - Adds Claude reviewer using [GH Agentic Workflows](https://github.github.com/gh-aw/introduction/how-they-work/) - Adds workflow handling of @/claude mentions in comments - Adds a `code-reviewer` subagent for reuse in workflows. - Proxies through LiteLLM for Opus 4.7 model ### Testing https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/workflows/reviewer-claude.lock.yml This branch is directly in `elastic/kibana` rather than my fork and has been running the workflow for reviews during development with `pull_request` as the event, rather than the final state of `pull_request_target` events. You can see comments Claude has posted and responses to being mentioned. "No issues found" comments have been moved to a `no-op` instead, the status checks reflect when the agent runs anyways. Will need to follow up with a proper `pull_request_target` run after merge. There are some security settings automatically applied during compilation that we cannot verify yet. Since we're gated behind the label, there shouldn't be any issues immediately post merge with the workflow running unnecessarily. ### Note for Reviewers - It isn't necessary to review the two `lock` files. They are compiled and generated files, but must be committed for the workflow to run. - Open to different model versions, don't have a strong preference towards Opus 4.7 ## Cache and cost analysis Tested ten Opus 4.7 (`llm-gateway/claude-opus-4-7`) reviewer runs with `ENABLE_PROMPT_CACHING_1H` enabled. The cache is active, but the data includes dirty cases: prompt changes, long gaps outside the useful cache window, regular PR review runs, and comment-reply runs. | Run | Event | Head | Cost | Turns | Cache read | Cache write | Output | Effective tokens | | --- | --- | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | | [#15](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/runs/25011054153) | `pull_request` | `2076d4f` | $1.04 | 14 | 809,672 | 80,897 | 5,169 | 182,559 | | [#16](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/runs/25011557405) | `pull_request` | `382357b` | $1.32 | 21 | 1,495,919 | 70,406 | 5,226 | 240,928 | | [#17](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/runs/25012064350) | `pull_request` | `e93fe0b` | $1.33 | 23 | 1,378,836 | 50,413 | 13,022 | 240,413 | | [#18](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/runs/25013588252) | `pull_request` | `04ded1d` | $1.20 | 24 | 1,453,092 | 39,648 | 8,876 | 220,490 | | [#19](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/runs/25030187214) | `pull_request` | `88a2c7e` | $1.41 | 16 | 1,165,558 | 99,949 | 8,171 | 249,210 | | [#21](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/runs/25030484848) | `pr_review_comment` | `88a2c7e` | $0.45 | 9 | 512,383 | 19,390 | 3,035 | 82,782 | | [elastic#23](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/runs/25031202052) | `pull_request` | `66b198f` | $1.39 | 18 | 1,230,107 | 78,104 | 11,420 | 246,818 | | [elastic#26](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/runs/25033088024) | `pull_request` | `d59d8c0` | $1.50 | 22 | 1,428,302 | 90,868 | 8,885 | 269,265 | | [elastic#27](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/runs/25034181833) | `pull_request` | `d1052ef` | $1.73 | 24 | 2,016,691 | 81,113 | 8,737 | 317,759 | | [elastic#28](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/runs/25034226594) | `pr_review_comment` | `d1052ef` | $1.18 | 23 | 1,453,250 | 36,528 | 7,788 | 213,038 | | Run | First request cache read | First request cache write | Notes | | --- | ---: | ---: | --- | | 15 | 0 | 51,751 | Cold 1-hour cache write. | | 16 | 35,886 | 15,905 | Stable prefix reused. | | 17 | 35,886 | 15,907 | Same prefix hit pattern. | | 18 | 35,886 | 15,911 | Same prefix hit pattern. | | 19 | 0 | 53,676 | Cold again after long gap + prompt/head changes. | | 21 | 45,471 | 8,375 | Comment-reply flow reused 19 prefix and wrote a smaller suffix. | | 23 | 37,245 | 16,587 | New commit/prompt still reused part of the 1-hour prefix. | | 26 | 0 | 53,761 | Cold again after another gap + prompt/head changes. | | 27 | 37,245 | 16,511 | Warm PR run on a new head/prompt hash. | | 28 | 45,465 | 8,461 | Comment-reply flow reused 27 prefix, but still ran long. | Summary: - All observed cache creation was 1-hour (`ephemeral_1h_input_tokens`); no 5-minute writes were observed. - Average observed cost is about $1.26/run across all ten runs, or about $1.37 for normal `pull_request` runs excluding comment replies. - Comment replies are not inherently cheap: run 21 was $0.45 because it was narrow and 9 turns, while run 28 was $1.18 because it took 23 turns. - Cold starts appear after long gaps or prompt churn (runs 15, 19, 26); warm runs still reuse partial prefixes even when the commit/prompt hash changes. - Next tuning is comparing 5-minute vs 1-hour caching, testing cheaper models against review quality, and auditing trace data for unnecessary output or artifact reads. --------- Co-authored-by: Tyler Smalley <tyler.smalley@elastic.co> Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
tsullivan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 22, 2026
## Summary These tests seem to be failing due to lack of disk space. Example: • [Defend Workflows Cypress Tests #11](https://buildkite.com/elastic/kibana-on-merge/builds/99864#019ed9be-d4f2-4b49-a4b9-1690c67d5658) • [Defend Workflows Cypress Tests #16](https://buildkite.com/elastic/kibana-on-merge/builds/99864#019ed9bf-5af1-41e6-a408-10d3d4fe92be) • [Defend Workflows Cypress Tests #18](https://buildkite.com/elastic/kibana-on-merge/builds/99864#019ed9b6-ffc7-4e85-83f2-780a3707c8dc) • [Defend Workflows Cypress Tests elastic#22](https://buildkite.com/elastic/kibana-on-merge/builds/99864#019ed9b4-3ce2-46a8-b318-cae6232fe6c2)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
DO NOT MERGE - POC only
This draft PR explores integration and capabilities of new [Epic] Flyout System within Discover - both for our internal use and as an extension point for contextual profiles ([OneDiscover][Extension] Full Fly-out Extension Point for Document Viewer in Discover)
With the new flyout system, we can enhance our background searches flyout and let user explore a single session within a child flyout:
As per extension point, having minimal changes in Unified Doc Viewer (setting prop
sessiontostart) and swapping traces waterfall fullscreen component to a flyout withsession='inherit'we're able to enhance traces exploration:Checklist
Check the PR satisfies following conditions.
Reviewers should verify this PR satisfies this list as well.
release_note:breakinglabel should be applied in these situations.release_note:*label is applied per the guidelinesbackport:*labels.Identify risks
Does this PR introduce any risks? For example, consider risks like hard to test bugs, performance regression, potential of data loss.
Describe the risk, its severity, and mitigation for each identified risk. Invite stakeholders and evaluate how to proceed before merging.