Skip to content

fleet(pool): background tier has zero consumers — name the adoption/repointing step and owner (composition R3, carried 4 runs) #2306

New issue
New issue
Open
Open
fleet(pool): background tier has zero consumers — name the adoption/repointing step and owner (composition R3, carried 4 runs)#2306
Assignees
dezren39
Labels
effort/sSmall: expected under 2 hours of workkind/infrastructureInfrastructure / host-portability workmeta/enrichedIntake review done: acceptance criteria, links, and normalized labels addedpriority/normalOrdinary priority (the default)queue/queuedHas a queued task in the Supabase agent queuesource/humanFiled directly by a humanstatus/needs-triageNot yet triaged; needs a first looktask/triageQueue packet kind: verify, reproduce, and route this item

Description

@dezren39
dezren39
opened on Oct 29, 2026

Problem

The background route tier (and mimo-flash-plan, whose only consumer it is) is composed and improved — peak-window gating landed via PR #1818 — but carries zero traffic: the pool-composition reviewer has now carried this as recommendation R3 / R2 across four consecutive runs (runs 2–5, 2026-10-28 → 2026-10-29) and each run's GitHub search finds no tracked adoption follow-up and no owner. Per the fleet's NOTHING-SITS-SILENTLY rule, a composed tier consumed by nothing, with no tracked repointing step, does not exist as work.

Evidence (pool-composition-log.md, run 4, 2026-10-28T23:02Z): "grep this run finds 0 references to opencode-route/background outside its own definition (no agent default points at it), and a GitHub search this run again finds no tracked repointing issue." Run 5 (2026-10-29T10:55Z) escalates R3 again: "file or link the queue-worker repointing step as a tracked issue with an owner this cycle — a gh search this run again found none."

Filed by the pool meta-reviewer (issue #1340, daily run 2026-10-29) after an independent dedupe search returned no covering issue.

Acceptance

  • Name the adoption step explicitly: which consumer(s) repoint to opencode-route/background (the composition reviewer's candidate is the queue-worker / lane background-class work), with a named owner.
  • After repointing, opencode-route/background appears in session route attribution (babysitter/dispatcher logs) — the measurable signal the composition reviewer named.
  • If the decision is instead to retire the tier, say so on this issue and file the config-removal work; an unused tier should not persist undecided.

Context

  • Composition log: hidden_files/pool-composition-log.md runs 2–5 (goal keep-the-four-repos-healthy).
  • Meta-review reports naming this debt: 2026-10-28 and 2026-10-29.

Activity

  1. developing-today commented on Oct 29, 2026

    @developing-today
    developing-todayBot
    on Oct 29, 2026 – with developing.today
    Contributor

    CODE-1159

  2. github-actions
    assigned
    dezren39
    on Oct 29, 2026
  3. dezren39
    added
    kind/infrastructureInfrastructure / host-portability work
    source/humanFiled directly by a human
    status/needs-triageNot yet triaged; needs a first look
    priority/normalOrdinary priority (the default)
    effort/sSmall: expected under 2 hours of work
    meta/enrichedIntake review done: acceptance criteria, links, and normalized labels added
    on Oct 29, 2026

  4. dezren39 commented on Oct 29, 2026

    @dezren39
    dezren39
    on Oct 29, 2026
    MemberAuthor

    Intake review

    • Related: Pool-composition reviews runs 2–5 (2026-10-28 → 2026-10-29), recommendation R3/R2 carried four runs; peak-window gating landed via PR feat(config): gate background on DeepSeek peak windows, order spark-plan, bump opencode pin #1818. Origin rule: NOTHING SITS SILENTLY (a composed tier with no consumer and no tracked adoption step does not exist as work).
    • Live check: The issue itself records that GitHub searches found no tracked adoption follow-up and no owner; nothing filed since changes that. Live.
    • Notes: This is a naming/ownership task before it is a code task: either name the adoption/repointing step and its owner, or make the explicit call to retire the background tier (and mimo-flash-plan's sole-consumer status). Either outcome closes the debt; continued silence is the only failure.
    • Risks: Low for the naming step. The risk being managed is organisational, not technical: an unused tier keeps attracting composition improvements (as it already has).
    • Suggested approach: Decide adopt-vs-retire in the stewardship/pool review, file the repointing step as a concrete follow-up with an owner, and link it here.
    • Labels: kind/infrastructure, source/human, status/needs-triage, priority/normal, effort/s, meta/enriched (issue previously carried no labels). No acceptance section appended — the body carries its own ## Acceptance-shaped criteria.
  5. dezren39
    added
    queue/queuedHas a queued task in the Supabase agent queue
    task/triageQueue packet kind: verify, reproduce, and route this item
    work/assignedQueue worker lifecycle state
    queue/claimedQueue worker lifecycle state
    and removed
    status/needs-triageNot yet triaged; needs a first look
    queue/queuedHas a queued task in the Supabase agent queue
    on Nov 3, 2026

  6. 115 remaining items

  7. dezren39
    added
    queue/parkedQueue task is parked (waiting on CI, time, or an event)
    status/parkedDeliberately paused with a recorded resume condition
    and removed
    status/in-progressQueue worker lifecycle state
    queue/claimedQueue worker lifecycle state
    on Nov 4, 2026

  8. dezren39 commented on Nov 4, 2026

    @dezren39
    dezren39
    on Nov 4, 2026
    MemberAuthor

    🤖 Agent note · parked

  9. dezren39
    added
    queue/claimedQueue worker lifecycle state
    status/in-progressQueue worker lifecycle state
    queue/queuedHas a queued task in the Supabase agent queue
    status/needs-triageNot yet triaged; needs a first look
    and removed
    status/parkedDeliberately paused with a recorded resume condition
    queue/parkedQueue task is parked (waiting on CI, time, or an event)
    status/in-progressQueue worker lifecycle state
    queue/claimedQueue worker lifecycle state
    work/assignedQueue worker lifecycle state
    on Nov 4, 2026

  10. dezren39 commented on Nov 5, 2026

    @dezren39
    dezren39
    on Nov 5, 2026
    MemberAuthor

    🤖 Agent note · handed off

    • Agent: fleet monitor
    • Session / ID: task 8500 (repo-fleet-monitor run 2026-11-05T15:45:47Z)
    • Found via: monitor reconciliation (Duty 1 claim/label divergence repair)
    • Task: Claim evaporated: task 8500 is queued and unclaimed in repo-health-code-pilot, but this issue still carried claimed labels. Labels reset to the truth (queue/queued + status/needs-triage). Checkpoint stage at evaporation: handed_off.
    • Expectation: The next lane claim picks task 8500 up from the queued state and posts a fresh pickup note.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

effort/sSmall: expected under 2 hours of workkind/infrastructureInfrastructure / host-portability workmeta/enrichedIntake review done: acceptance criteria, links, and normalized labels addedpriority/normalOrdinary priority (the default)queue/queuedHas a queued task in the Supabase agent queuesource/humanFiled directly by a humanstatus/needs-triageNot yet triaged; needs a first looktask/triageQueue packet kind: verify, reproduce, and route this item

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions