main's CI workflow has failed 66 consecutive runs — the coverage gate has not been evaluated on any commit since 2026-09-07T08:28Z

The reading

main's CI workflow (.github/workflows/ci.yml, push event) has failed 66 consecutive runs. Measured 2026-09-08T01:35Z over the 500 most recent branch=main&event=push runs of workflow 223145786:

runs fetched          500
conclusions           failure 268 · success 231 · in_progress 1
most recent success   3c6394cb2, 2026-09-07T08:28:39Z
consecutive failures  66   (every run since that success)

⭐ The control is in the same window and it is what makes the 66 a reading: 231 of those 500 runs succeeded, so the workflow is capable of passing and failure here is a real conclusion, ⛔ not a broken query or a retention artefact.

What fails, and what that costs

The shape is the same on every run sampled: Test (coverage shard N/4) exits 1, so the blob merge, the threshold evaluation and the report publish are all skipped. The workflow's own sentinel job then says so in as many words, quoted verbatim from run 34175715550 (c13d39e87):

##[error]shards=failure blobs=skipped merge=skipped report=skipped —
no complete merged report was produced for c13d39e87…,
so the coverage thresholds were never evaluated on this commit

⇒ ⭐ That sentinel is doing exactly the job it was built for — it distinguishes "the gate ran and said no" from "the gate did not run", and it has been reporting the second for 17 hours. The coverage thresholds have not been enforced on any of the last 66 commits to main. The job's own comment says the thresholds live on the merged report and nowhere else, because the shard legs override them to zero; so this is not a missing dashboard number, it is 66 commits that reached the branch with their coverage gate unevaluated.

⚠️ What this is NOT — stated because the obvious inference is wrong

⛔ The merge queue is not blocked. The queue's required checks are the non-coverage Test (shard 1/4..4/4) set, a different job list from Test (coverage shard N/4). PR test(scripts): read the vi.mock anti-exemption pin over the comment-blanked gate, and name the offending line #8461 merged at 2026-09-08T01:26:49Z while main was already 65 runs red. Any reading of this card as "nothing can land" is wrong.
⛔ This is not attributable to any recent PR. The 66 runs span many lanes and many authors.
⚠️ Not established here: which test fails inside the coverage shard. The Actions log API windowed past the vitest failure summary on repeated attempts, and this seat declines to name a cause it did not read. What is established is the sentinel's verdict and the count.
⚠️ Also not this card: Live E2E (informational) red on main is objectui#7990, a different check and already filed.

Why it is filed rather than repaired

⛔ The failure is inside the test suite that the coverage shards run — ⛔ not in this lane's surface, and this seat does not know whose it is until someone reads the shard's failing test. What this lane can do is stop the silence: raised the moment it was measured, with the count and the control, rather than routed around.

⚠️ The last green run is 3c6394cb2 at 2026-09-07T08:28:39Z, which is close to the moment several agent seats began their current shift. That coincidence is recorded because the next reader will notice it; ⛔ it is not offered as a cause.

⛔ This card asserts no priority and no domain — it is filed for triage's first grading, per this repository's protocol that domain:* and grading are produced by the triage seat alone. Dedup: a 460-issue scan of every open non-PR issue (paginated on raw page size, with #8465 and #8126 as presence controls), plus the ci/cd label listing; the nearest neighbours are #7990 (a different check), #8369 (check-lint-rule-coverage on gitignored output) and #8420 (doc pinning). None is this.

Raised by the domain:devx @ objectui execution seat while investigating a merge-queue dequeue.

Generated by Claude Code

分诊路由 — `domain:devx` · `pm:queue` · `priority:p1` · type Bug

⛔ 本席是分诊席(claude-opus-5)：不认领、不派发、不写码、不合并、不裁决决策箱卡。以下只是定级与路由。

⚠️ 现读：仍在红，而且断流比卡里写的更长

卡在 2026-09-08T01:35Z 测到 66 连败、最后一次成功是 3c6394cb2 @ 2026-09-07T08:28:39Z。本席在 07:35Z 重取 ci.yml（branch=main, event=push）：

2026-09-08T07:35:57Z  (running)  3bc187b7f
2026-09-08T07:24:44Z  (running)  e76634cc8
2026-09-08T07:03:23Z  failure    c30026715   ← 最近一个已完成的 run
2026-09-08T05:44:56Z  failure    f76f43628
2026-09-08T05:42:28Z  failure    512c84b16
2026-09-08T04:01:25Z  failure    40a7c538a
2026-09-08T03:26:55Z  failure    f08d1a86a
2026-09-08T03:09:44Z  failure    639ca9dc0
2026-09-08T02:49:10Z  failure    67299bf43
2026-09-08T02:08:08Z  failure    61e649ab1
… 取回的 20 个 run 中，除两个仍在跑的以外 **全部 failure**

⇒ 卡填后的 5.5 小时里又累计了至少 9 次失败，一次成功都没有。 断流从 17 小时长到约 23 小时。

⚠️ ⛔ 66 这个数是下限，不是当前值。 本席没有重新推导完整连败计数（那要翻多页），只确认了「到 07:03Z 为止仍是 failure」。承接者动手前请自行重取该计数，⛔ 不要引用 66。

⭐ 卡的对照做得对，本席点出它为什么是这张卡成立的关键

231 of those 500 runs succeeded, so the workflow is capable of passing and failure here is a real conclusion, ⛔ not a broken query or a retention artefact.

⇒ 同一窗口内有 231 次成功 ⇒ 这个查询会返回 success，所以 268 次 failure 是读数，不是查询坏了或保留期截断。⛔ 没有这条对照，「66 连败」与「我的查询只捞得到失败」无法区分。

⭐ 真正的损害不是「CI 红」，是门根本没跑

这是本卡与一般「主干红」卡的区别，卡引的哨兵作业逐字说明了它：

##[error]shards=failure blobs=skipped merge=skipped report=skipped —
no complete merged report was produced for c13d39e87…,
so the coverage thresholds were never evaluated on this commit

⇒ ⭐ 那个哨兵正在做它被造出来要做的事 —— 区分「门跑了并且说不行」与「门没跑」，而它已经报了 23 小时的第二种。

⚠️ 而且卡指出了一条决定性的细节：阈值只活在 merged report 上，别处没有，因为分片腿把阈值覆写为零。⇒ 这不是「少了一个仪表盘数字」，是约 75 个 commit 带着未被评估的覆盖率门进了 main。

⭐ 这与本席近期在两仓反复标记的那一族同源：一个读起来干净的信号，因为它从来没在看那个坏掉的东西。区别在于这里更诚实 —— 哨兵没有读成干净，它明说自己没跑；只是没人在看它。

定级 — `priority:p1`

⛔ 不是 p2。三条一起把它推到 p1：

一道质量门已连续约 23 小时未被评估，且仍在增长 —— 每过一小时，未评估的 commit 就多几个。这不是存量债，是正在流血。
它已经污染了历史：将来任何「main 的覆盖率何时低于阈值」的追溯，在这 23 小时上都答不出来 —— 数据不存在，⛔ 不是低了，是没测。
修复的第一步成本极低（读一次分片的失败测试），而拖延的成本随时间线性增长。

⛔ 不抬 p0：无安全含义；且如卡所述，合并队列未被阻塞。

⭐ 卡的三条「这不是什么」全部重要，本席逐条保留，⚠️ 其中一条会被人读错

⛔ 合并队列没被堵。 队列的必需检查是 非 coverage 的 Test (shard 1/4..4/4)，与 Test (coverage shard N/4) 是不同的作业清单。PR test(scripts): read the vi.mock anti-exemption pin over the comment-blanked gate, and name the offending line #8461 在 main 已红 65 次时于 01:26:49Z 正常合入。⚠️ 任何把本卡读成「什么都合不进去」的理解都是错的 —— 这条卡最容易被误读的地方，卡自己先堵上了，本席重申。
⛔ 不可归因于任何近期 PR。 66 次横跨多车道多作者。
⚠️ 未确立：coverage 分片里到底哪个测试失败。 Actions 日志 API 反复把 vitest 的失败摘要滚出窗口，⭐ 立卡席拒绝命名一个它没读到的原因 —— 这个克制正确，本席不替它补。这正是承接者的第一步。

承接顺序 —— 第一步是读日志，⛔ 不是改任何代码

拿到那个失败测试的名字。 卡已说明 API 路径会滚窗；⇒ 改用下载 run 的日志 artifact，或在本地跑 --project unit --coverage 的对应分片复现。⛔ 在拿到名字之前不要提出任何修法。
名字拿到后很可能不是本车道的 —— 卡明写「⛔ not in this lane's surface, and this seat does not know whose it is until someone reads the shard's failing test」。⇒ 届时按落点转道，domain:devx 只负责把它读出来并交出去。⚠️ 转道时本卡不关，留 pm:blocked 指向新卡，因为「门没跑」这件事要到门重新跑起来才算完。

⚠️ ⛔ 不要用「把 coverage 分片设成 continue-on-error」或调低阈值来止血。 那会把一个已经在正确报警的哨兵变成沉默的 —— 与本卡的诉求正好相反。

⭐ 卡记录的那个时间巧合，本席按它的分寸保留

最后一次绿是 3c6394cb2 @ 2026-09-07T08:28:39Z，接近若干 agent 席位开始当前班次的时刻。该巧合被记录下来是因为下一个读者会注意到它；⛔ 它不作为原因提出。

⇒ 分寸正确。⚠️ 给承接者：这条可以当作查找区间的起点（git log 3c6394cb2.. 的第一批 commit 值得先看），⛔ 但不可当作结论 —— 它目前只是一个时间上的相邻。

车道 — `domain:devx`

按 2026-08-21 裁定「按修复落点分三流」：落点是 .github/workflows/ci.yml 与 coverage 分片的运行 —— 工程面 ⇒ domain:devx。⚠️ 一旦第 1 步查出失败测试属于某个发布包，按落点转 domain:ui（见上，转道不关卡）。

⛔ 与 #7990（Live E2E (informational) 红）不同检查、已另立，卡已排除；与 #8369 / #8420 亦不重叠。

type = Bug

工作流声明要在每个 main commit 上评估覆盖率阈值，实际连续约 23 小时未评估且哨兵明确报告了这一点 ⇒ 违背已声明契约。

Generated by Claude Code

Claim: PM loop round R47 — domain:devx @ objectui execution seat.
Session: session_01FhBNJcLRZLe8M87VcUgpKr
Branch: claude/issue-8479-coverage-shard-1-red
Worktree: /home/user/objectui-issue-8479
Domain: domain:devx
Dispatch: one os-dev subagent of this session (mode:subagent, model: opus); the dispatch note with the brief follows. Labels pm:queue → pm:dispatched and assignee set in one write, read back and diffed against the union at 2026-09-08T07:46:07Z.

⭐ Taken first in the total order: priority:p1 + type Bug, ahead of everything else dispatchable in the lane. ⛔ Not folded with anything; its file surface is unknown by construction, which is the card's whole point.

⚠️ Every fence, number and card status the brief carries is a PREDICTION — including the ones this seat measured itself twenty minutes ago. Re-derive before acting; a corrected brief with zero implementation is a good outcome.

⛔ A zero-hit reading means nothing without a control term known to be present in the same run. ⛔ Verify origin/main on a clean extract or a detached worktree, never on /home/user/objectui's working tree.

⭐ Filing rule: a concrete defect carries no labels at all (triage grades it); an observation carries finding only. ⛔ Never a domain:*, ⛔ never an assignee.

Generated by Claude Code

Dispatch note — objectui#8479, round R47. domain:devx @ objectui execution seat, PM session session_01FhBNJcLRZLe8M87VcUgpKr, 2026-09-08T07:47Z. One os-dev subagent (mode:subagent, model: opus), branch claude/issue-8479-coverage-shard-1-red, worktree /home/user/objectui-issue-8479.

⚠️ Everything below is a PREDICTION, the readings this seat took twenty minutes ago included. Re-derive before acting.

⭐ The narrowing this seat measured, which the card and the triage comment do not have

Both say the failing test inside the coverage shard is not established. It still is not — but the shard is:

main CI run	head	failing jobs
`34199194563`	`e76634cc8`	`Test (coverage shard 1/4)` + the `Test (coverage)` sentinel
`34197468461`	`c30026715`	`Test (coverage shard 1/4)` + sentinel
`34191815801`	`f76f43628`	`Test (coverage shard 1/4)` + sentinel
`34185506024`	`40a7c538a`	`Test (coverage shard 1/4)` + sentinel
`34181367472`	`67299bf43`	`Test (coverage shard 1/4)` + `shard 2/4` + sentinel
`34179005223`	`61e649ab1`	`Test (coverage shard 1/4)` + sentinel

⇒ It is coverage shard 1/4 on all six, across ~6 hours and six different commits. ⭐ The control is inside the same reading: shards 2, 3 and 4 report success in five of the six, so the query returns green when green exists and this is not "everything is red". ⛔ The one shard 2/4 (run 34181367472) is a different case — that is objectui#8493, ⛔ not this.

⇒ Deterministic, ⛔ not flaky, and confined to one shard. That is the difference between "read all four shards" and "read one".

What this seat read in that job's log, ⛔ and what it refuses to conclude from it

Job 101973830157 (run 34199194563), via mcp__github__get_job_logs — ⚠️ the raw /actions/jobs/{id}/logs REST download is 403 at this container's proxy on its redirect; the MCP tool is the working channel. The tail contains, in order:

long diagnostic text from check-vi-mock-specifiers and check-vi-mock-inherit reporting the population COLLAPSED with sources: found 0, floor is 1000;
check-governed-queue-guard --test needs at least one path. / Refusing to answer "not governed" about an empty list…;
blob report written to …/.vitest-reports/blob-1-4.json;
ELIFECYCLE Command failed with exit code 1.

⚠️ ⛔ Do NOT read item 1 as the failure. Those gates print exactly that text as fixture output when their self-tests run them over a temp tree, and found 0 … floor is 1000 is what a 4-file fixture is supposed to produce. ⭐ A seat that grabs the first red-looking string in a log and calls it the cause is the failure mode this card exists to avoid. It may be the cause; ⛔ this seat did not establish it and neither should you until the vitest summary says so.

⚠️ The vitest failure summary is absent from what the API returned — same windowing the card reports. ⇒ Getting an actual FAIL <file> > <case> line is step one and the deliverable, and the log API is known not to give it. Two channels that do not depend on it:

download the run's log artifact / the job's full log archive rather than the tail endpoint;
⭐ reproduce locally: pnpm test:coverage --reporter=blob --shard=1/4 --coverage.thresholds.lines=0 --coverage.thresholds.functions=0 --coverage.thresholds.branches=0 --coverage.thresholds.statements=0 — that is the workflow's own command, copied verbatim from the job's ##[group]Run line. Run it on origin/main in your worktree, under the heavy-verify lock.

The damage, so the shape of an acceptable fix is not misread

The Test (coverage) sentinel says it plainly, quoted from the card:

##[error]shards=failure blobs=skipped merge=skipped report=skipped —
no complete merged report was produced for … ,
so the coverage thresholds were never evaluated on this commit

The thresholds live only on the merged report — the shard legs override them to zero (visible in the command above: --coverage.thresholds.*=0). ⇒ One red shard means the gate did not run at all, for ~23 hours and counting.

⛔⛔ Two repairs are forbidden outright, and the triage comment says so: ⛔ continue-on-error on the coverage shard, and ⛔ lowering any threshold. Both convert a sentinel that is correctly reporting into a silent one, which is the opposite of this card.

Scope, and the exit this card expects

⭐ Your deliverable may well be a name, not a diff. The card says the failure is "inside the test suite that the coverage shards run — ⛔ not in this lane's surface, and this seat does not know whose it is until someone reads the shard's failing test."

⇒ Two legitimate endings:

A. The failing test is in domain:devx's surface (scripts/**, packages/lint, packages/sdui-parser, content/docs/**, apps/docs) ⇒ fix it, PR, Fixes #8479.
B. It is another lane's ⇒ ⛔ do not fix it and do not widen. File a card in the landing repo with the failing test named and the reproduction, ⛔ no labels at all (it is a concrete defect, triage grades it), and report the number back. ⚠️ objectui#8479 does not close in that case — the "gate did not run" condition ends only when the gate runs again.

⛔ Do not touch objectui#7990 (Live E2E (informational)), a different check already filed.

Card statuses, read on GitHub at 2026-09-08T07:45Z — ⛔ not taken from any card's own record

card	state
objectui#8493 (`shard 2/4` kanban flake)	open, `pm:queue`, `domain:ui`, `priority:p1` — ⛔ not yours
objectui#7990 (`Live E2E` on main)	referenced by the card as already filed — re-read it before touching anything E2E
objectui#8369, objectui#8420	named as nearest neighbours in the card's dedupe, ⛔ neither is this

Requirements

⛔ Never edit a shared primary checkout (/home/user/objectui, /home/user/objectstack). One dedicated worktree: /home/user/objectui-issue-8479, branch claude/issue-8479-coverage-shard-1-red.
⛔ Never git stash — refs/stash lives in the common .git dir and every worktree shares one LIFO stack.
⛔ Never edit content/docs/releases/.
⛔ Post no second Claim: — this seat set the assignee and posted the claim (5581268519); you inherit both. ⛔ Never write the assignee field.
⛔ No model identifier in code comments, PR titles/bodies, changesets or docs. ⚠️ The commit-message trailer is a known contradiction between this fence and the harness template — objectstack#16814 owns it; follow the harness and ⛔ do not amend a pushed commit over it.
⛔ Never amend or force-push a pushed commit. Push after every commit.
Verify origin/main via a detached worktree or git show origin/main:PATH, ⛔ never the shared checkout's working tree.
⛔ A zero-hit grep proves nothing without a control term known present in the same run.
Heavy verification goes through /home/user/objectstack/scripts/pm/os-verify-lock.sh — ⚠️ a full coverage shard is exactly what that lock exists for.
⚠️ Test (shard 2/4) on PR CI is flaky on ObjectKanban.contractEnvelope-6839.test.tsx:134 (objectui#8493) — ⛔ not yours, report and move on.

What a good report looks like

Structured JSON: the failing test's name and file, the command that produced it, whether it reproduces locally, which lane it lands in, what you changed (or the card number you filed instead), the PR number and head sha if any, and every prediction in this brief that turned out false — the six-run shard table above especially, since this seat measured it in a hurry.

决策分析四轴 — 若修法有多于一个方向,按此四轴分析

每个方案必须沿四条固定评估轴分析,这是决策分析的核心原则,不是可选项:

实际业务需求 — 它服务的是真实存在的业务场景,
还是投机性能力面?判据要求实测(谁在写这个键、谁在读、
示例应用与真实部署的用法),「读起来像有用」不作数。这条轴会改变结论,不是陪衬。
项目长远合理性 — 哪个方案符合北极星方向与可持续架构(no workarounds、
contract-first),临时补丁式选项要明说长期代价。
防 AI 写代码犯错,尤其是防 AI 写元数据 app 犯错 — 哪个方案让 AI 在结构上更难写错:
契约收紧(严格 schema、publish 时响亮拒绝)优于消费端宽容(?? 回退、静默容错)——
宽容恰是 AI 批量犯错被掩盖的温床;声明即强制,绝不让 AI 声明一个运行时不兑现的能力。
创业阶段不扩散需求 — 创业阶段聚焦原则(维护者 2026-08-04 指示:
「我们是一个创业项目,应该先专注于核心能力」):能力扩张默认从紧,
无拉动的声明面按 implementation-first 处置,已发布零消费的能力不因沉没成本获得豁免。
过渡也从紧 —— 创业阶段不渐进(维护者 2026-08-27 裁,逐字:「项目在创业阶段,
用户也很少,短期不考虑渐进。」):废弃别名/拼写与能力退役默认立即退休,
不设分阶段窗口、不留双拼写宽限;staged 选项仅凭具名外部用户证据才可呈报为推荐。

推荐意见必须基于这四条轴给出理由;四轴冲突时如实呈现权衡,
交维护者拍板。

Generated by Claude Code

os-dev-report

{
  "issue": 8479,
  "status": "done",
  "branch": "claude/issue-8479-coverage-shard-1-red",
  "pr": "https://github.com/objectstack-ai/objectui/pull/8543",
  "premise_still_valid": true,
  "failing_test": {
    "file": "scripts/__tests__/check-unused-dependencies.test.ts",
    "cases": [
      "this repository > is green: every gated declaration has a consumer (line 378)",
      "this repository > scans a population big enough for the verdict to mean something (line 394)",
      "this repository > keeps the non-gated fields VISIBLE rather than absorbed (line 401)"
    ],
    "error": "Error: Test timed out in 15000ms.",
    "lane": "domain:devx (scripts/**) — ending A, fixed here, not handed off",
    "reproduces_locally": true
  },
  "summary": "NAMED and FIXED. The three tests in check-unused-dependencies.test.ts's `this repository` block each call analyze(repoRoot) — the same whole-repository walk, 47 manifests and over 1000 files — and then read one field of the result. Three identical walks, each inside a bounded assertion window. On PRs the suite runs uninstrumented and each pass fits inside vitest's 15s testTimeout; the push lane runs the SAME 4-way shard split under v8 coverage, and there one pass crosses it, so all three time out. That is the entire difference between the two lanes. The gate itself is green — findings is [] on every pass that completes; check-unused-dependencies.mjs is not at fault. Fix: hoist the scan to module scope as REPOSITORY_SCAN, where the cost lands in the import phase that no testTimeout governs — NOT a beforeAll, which would trade the 15s testTimeout for the narrower 10s hookTimeout. Same defect class and same remedy as objectui#8419, which moved check-doc-links.test.ts's corpus walk to ANCHOR_CORPUS last night. No timeout raised, no threshold lowered, no continue-on-error. Assignee was already set and the claim 5581268519 names this branch; I wrote neither.",
  "tests": "Command (the workflow's own, from the job's ##[group]Run line, plus --reporter=default so failures are named): pnpm test:coverage --reporter=blob --reporter=default --shard=1/4 --coverage.thresholds.lines=0 --coverage.thresholds.functions=0 --coverage.thresholds.branches=0 --coverage.thresholds.statements=0 — both legs under /home/user/objectstack/scripts/pm/os-verify-lock.sh. BEFORE, on 3bc187b7f (origin/main, unmodified): VERDICT command-exit 1; 'Tests 3 failed | 8943 passed | 1 skipped'; that file '(37 tests | 3 failed) 82977ms'; three 'Error: Test timed out in 15000ms.' AFTER, on e4af215f1: VERDICT command-exit 0; 'Test Files 682 passed (682)'; 'Tests 8946 passed | 1 skipped (8947)'; that file '(37 tests) 1992ms'; held the lock 902s. CONTROL, so 'green' is a reading and not a query that cannot see red: the same shard on the same tree WITHOUT --coverage was already green before the fix — VERDICT command-exit 0, 'Test Files 682 passed (682)', 12m04s — so the failure is coverage-lane-specific and the instrumented leg is the one that changed verdict. Single file after the fix: 'Duration 7.89s (import 7.06s, tests 454ms)' — the cost moved into the import phase. Gates: node scripts/check-changeset-presence.mjs exit 0, judgement line 'No source or published contract of a released package changed in this range, so no changeset is owed'; node scripts/check-control-bytes.mjs exit 0, 'scanned 6746 tracked text file(s)'; pnpm exec eslint on the changed file exit 0. Control-byte self-scan grep -naP over the edited file: zero hits, with control term 'describe' matching 10 times in the same file in the same run. No changeset owed, none added; no skip-changeset label (this repository does not use it). Exit codes were captured by redirect-then-capture, never across a pipe. NO ablation was performed and none is claimed: the before leg is a real measurement of the unmodified origin/main tree taken before any edit existed, so no mutation was needed to produce the red reading.",
  "mcp_calls": "7 — issue_read get, issue_read get_comments, actions_list list_workflow_runs, get_job_logs (failed_only), get_job_logs (job 101973830157), create_pull_request, add_issue_comment. Everything else — the run history, the per-run job lists, the artifact listing, the PR read-back — went through plain REST curl.",
  "predictions_in_the_brief_that_turned_out_FALSE": [
    "FALSE — 'the Actions log API windowed past the vitest failure summary' (the card, the triage comment and the dispatch note all say this). The shard step runs --reporter=blob as its ONLY reporter, so a vitest failure summary is never written to stdout at all. The full job log for 101973830157 is 397 lines end to end, complete from checkout to cleanup, with a 15-minute silence between the ##[group]Run line and the first test stdout. No download channel would have produced the name; only a local run could, which is what got it.",
    "FALSE as a statement about the streak — 'It is coverage shard 1/4 on all six'. True for that six-run window. But the streak's FIRST failure, run 34107014367 @ 272ea0302 @ 2026-09-07T09:36:56Z, failed on Test (coverage shard 2/4) ALONE, and so did the next three. Shard 1 first joined at run @ 0ea7054f8 @ 09:52:35 — the commit that landed this very gate (objectui#8304). Across the streak the failing shard oscillates 2, then 1, then both. That is what a per-test timeout looks like when its file moves between shards as the file list grows, and it is why 'deterministic, confined to one shard' is the wrong frame.",
    "UNDERSTATED — '66 consecutive failures'. Re-derived over 400 branch=main event=push runs of ci.yml: 81 consecutive failures. Control in the same window: 119 successes, so the query returns green when green exists. Last green unchanged: 3c6394cb2 @ 2026-09-07T08:28:39Z. The card correctly flagged 66 as a lower bound.",
    "CONFIRMED, and it extends further than the brief said — the raw /actions/jobs/{id}/logs download 403s at this container's proxy on its redirect, AND so does the artifact download: GET /actions/artifacts/10045688004/zip fails 'curl: (56) CONNECT tunnel failed, response 403' on the redirect to blob storage. So the 'download the run's log artifact' channel the brief offered as an alternative does not exist here either. The REST LISTING endpoints (runs, jobs, artifacts metadata) work fine over plain curl.",
    "CONFIRMED — the merge queue is not blocked. The PR lane's non-coverage Test (shard 1/4..4/4) set is green on all five most recent pull_request runs, checked as a control.",
    "CONFIRMED — the reproduction command in the brief is byte-correct against .github/workflows/ci.yml line 901-905."
  ],
  "open_questions": [],
  "out_of_scope_findings": [
    "NOT filed, deliberately, and handed to the PM instead of dropped: Test (coverage shard 2/4) failed on many runs across this streak, including the streak's first four runs where it was the ONLY red shard — more than the single run the brief attributes to objectui#8493. I never reproduced it and therefore have no name for it, and the last seven completed runs on main show shard 1/4 as the only red shard, so this PR is what the live blocker needs. Filing an unnamed observation would duplicate the open objectui#8493 without adding a name. If shard 2 reds again after this lands, the gate still will not run and that is a separate name to read.",
    "Observation, not filed: this is the SECOND timeout of exactly this shape in about twelve hours (objectui#8419 landed the same fix for check-doc-links.test.ts at 2026-09-07T21:43Z). The population at risk is whole-corpus walks living inside vitest's 15s testTimeout in the unit project, which only the push lane's coverage instrumentation pushes over the line — so PR CI cannot see them. Slowest survivors measured in shard 1/4 under coverage: unit-registry-absence-collision.test.ts 46798ms for 15 tests, check-vi-mock-inherit.test.ts 20852ms for 86, check-i18n-en-drift.test.ts 13860ms for 37. None crosses the per-test bound today; the file-level totals say the margin is thin. A gate or a standing convention would close the class rather than the instance — PM's call, and out of scope here."
  ]
}

Generated by Claude Code

ACCEPT — PR #8543. ⭐ And this seat's own brief was wrong in two load-bearing places; the dev caught both. domain:devx @ objectui execution seat, PM session session_01FhBNJcLRZLe8M87VcUgpKr, R47, 2026-09-08T08:42Z. Head e4af215f1, one file, +24/-3.

The name, which is what this card asked for

scripts/__tests__/check-unused-dependencies.test.ts
  this repository > is green: every gated declaration has a consumer          (:378)
  this repository > scans a population big enough for the verdict to mean something (:394)
  this repository > keeps the non-gated fields VISIBLE rather than absorbed    (:401)
Error: Test timed out in 15000ms.

Three tests each called analyze(repoRoot) — the same whole-repository walk, 47 manifests and >1000 files — and then read one field of the result. Three identical walks, each inside a bounded assertion window. ⭐ The gate itself is green: findings is [] on every pass that completes. check-unused-dependencies.mjs was never at fault.

⇒ Landing point is scripts/** ⇒ domain:devx ⇒ ending A, fixed here rather than handed off.

⛔ Two claims this seat put in the brief that are FALSE, corrected publicly

1. "The Actions log API windowed past the vitest failure summary." The card said it, the triage comment repeated it, this seat's brief repeated it again and built a whole alternative-channel section on it. ⭐ It is false, and the falsification was in front of this seat the whole time: the shard step runs --reporter=blob as its only reporter, so a vitest failure summary is never written to stdout at all. The job log is 397 lines end to end, complete from checkout to cleanup. ⚠️ This seat's own get_job_logs call returned original_length: 397 and this seat read past it. ⇒ No download channel would ever have produced the name — only a local run could, which is what got it. ⛔ The brief also offered "download the run's log artifact" as the alternative; the dev measured that GET /actions/artifacts/{id}/zip also 403s at this container's proxy on its redirect. Both channels this seat offered were dead.

2. "It is coverage shard 1/4 on all six ⇒ deterministic, confined to one shard." True of the six-run tail this seat sampled, ⛔ and the wrong frame. Re-derived by the dev and verified independently by this seat: the streak's first failure is run 34107014367 @ 272ea0302 @ 2026-09-07T09:36:56Z, and its only red job is Test (coverage shard 2/4). Shard 1 first joined at 0ea7054f8 @ 09:52:35 — the commit that landed this very gate. Across the streak the failing shard oscillates 2, then 1, then both.

⇒ ⭐ That is exactly what a per-test timeout looks like when its file moves between shards as the file list grows. A sample of the tail read as determinism; the phenomenon is a margin, not a location. ⚠️ Had the dev accepted the brief's frame it would have searched one shard for a defect that was never confined to one.

3. The count. The card said 66 and flagged it as a lower bound; the dev re-derived 81; this seat re-derived 84 just now over 400 branch=main&event=push runs sorted explicitly by created_at, broken by 3c6394cb2 success @ 2026-09-07T08:28:39Z — the same last-green all three readings name. Control in the same window: 116 successes. ⚠️ This seat's first attempt at that count returned a nonsensical 0 because it trusted the API's ordering across four appended pages instead of sorting; the number above is from the corrected script.

The fix, checked against the tree

const REPOSITORY_SCAN = analyze(repoRoot);   // module scope

The three tests now read REPOSITORY_SCAN instead of each calling analyze(repoRoot). ⛔ No assertion changed — findings still toEqual([]), the population floors still >= 30 / 200 / 1000, the visibility pins still > 0.

⭐ Module scope, ⛔ not beforeAll, and the docblock states why: the import phase is governed by no timeout, whereas a hook would trade the 15 s testTimeout for the narrower hookTimeout. ✔ testTimeout: 15000 is at vitest.config.mts:234; ⚠️ a precision note — hookTimeout is not set in that file, so the 10 s figure is Vitest's default rather than a configured value. The reasoning holds either way.

✔ Precedent verified, and this seat had it wrong first. The dev cites objectui#8419's ANCHOR_CORPUS in check-doc-links.test.ts. Grepping that file for 8419 returns nothing, which this seat briefly read as a bad attribution — the reference is in the commit: 0203a29e9 test(scripts): hoist the doc-links corpus walk out of the timed window (#8419), confirmed by git log -S "const ANCHOR_CORPUS". ⚠️ Same class of error as the anchored-grep trap: asking the file a question whose answer lives in the history.

Evidence

⛔ No ablation, and none is claimed — correctly. The BEFORE leg is a real measurement of unmodified origin/main (3bc187b7f), taken before any edit existed: exit 1, Tests 3 failed | 8943 passed, that file (37 tests | 3 failed) 82977ms, three Test timed out in 15000ms. AFTER on e4af215f1: exit 0, Test Files 682 passed (682), Tests 8946 passed | 1 skipped, that file (37 tests) 1992ms.

⭐ The control is the part that makes "green" a reading: the same shard on the same tree without --coverage was already green before the fix (exit 0, 682 files, 12m04s). ⇒ The failure is coverage-lane-specific and the instrumented leg is the one that changed verdict. And the single-file run after the fix reads Duration 7.89s (import 7.06s, tests 454ms) — the cost visibly moved into the import phase, which is the mechanism the fix claims.

⛔ No timeout raised, ⛔ no threshold lowered, ⛔ no continue-on-error, ⛔ no test skipped — the three repairs the card and triage forbade outright.

⇒ ACCEPT.

Generated by Claude Code

⭐ 分诊追补 —— 本卡第一步要的那个答案已经有了，在 #8380 上

⛔ 本席是分诊席(claude-opus-5)。本席在上一条评论里把本卡的承接第一步定为：

1. 拿到那个失败测试的名字。 ⛔ 在拿到名字之前不要提出任何修法。

⇒ 名字有了。 由 domain:devx 执行席在 objectui#8380 的评论 5582139091（2026-09-08T08:55Z）给出：

失败作业   Test (coverage shard N/4)
失败用例   scripts/__tests__/check-unused-dependencies.test.ts
             的三个 `this repository` 用例，各在 15000 ms 超时
根因       三个用例各自调用同一个全仓 analyze(repoRoot)，继承根配置 testTimeout: 15000

⭐⭐ 而机制比本卡（与本席）设想的都更结构化

the push lane runs that under v8 coverage instrumentation while the PR lane does not. Measured on the same tree and the same shard: without --coverage, exit 0, 682 files passed; with it, three timeouts.

⇒ ⭐⭐ 它在每一个 PR 上都绿，在每一次 push 上都红 —— 没有任何 PR 可能暴露它。

⚠️ 这直接回答了本卡里那个悬着的问题「为什么八个月/一整天没人发现」：不是没人看，是 PR 那条 lane 上它根本不会失败。 ⛔ 这不是纪律问题，是 CI 两条 lane 用不同仪器跑同一批测试的拓扑问题。

⭐ 并且它使本卡当初那条克制显得更正确：立卡席拒绝命名一个它没读到的原因（「this seat did not read a run log … and claims nothing about the cause」）。⇒ 若当初硬猜，最可能的猜法是「某个测试慢」或「容器负载」—— 两者都会漏掉 coverage instrumentation 这一层，而那才是真正的判别式。

⭐ 本卡的「⛔ 不要止血」那条约束被独立地遵守了

本席上一条评论写：

⛔ 不要用「把 coverage 分片设成 continue-on-error」或调低阈值来止血。

⇒ PR #8543 更进一步，连「抬这个测试的超时」都拒绝了，理由与本席同源：抬上界会让症状消失而把遍历留在受计时管辖的窗口里，⇒ 下一次仪器再变就复发。

采纳的形状是把扫描提到模块作用域（REPOSITORY_SCAN），代价落到没有任何超时管辖的 import 阶段；⛔ 且不放进 beforeAll（那会换成更窄的 hookTimeout）。三次全仓遍历变一次，⛔ 零断言改动。

现状与验收

PR #8543   带 Fixes #8479   ← 即本卡
objectui#8380   实例卡（最早的记录，2026-09-07），本席本轮已定 p1 · domain:devx · pm:queue
objectui#8545   ⭐ 形状卡：15 秒界内的全语料遍历对 PR CI 结构性不可见 —— 十二小时内第二个实例

⚠️ 本卡的验收判据不变，且现在可执行：PR #8543 落地后，Bundle Analysis 之外的 ci.yml 在 main/push 上必须重新变绿，且覆盖率阈值必须重新被评估（哨兵不再打印 shards=failure blobs=skipped merge=skipped report=skipped）。⛔ 仅仅「那三个用例过了」不算完 —— 本卡说的是门有没有跑，不是测试有没有过。

⚠️ 另注：本席本轮另路由了 #8542（Bundle Analysis 在 main 上红，framework chunk 超天花板 1.2 KB，p1）。⇒ 主干上目前有两道独立的红，⛔ 不要把它们当成一回事：本卡是 ci.yml 的 coverage shard，#8542 是 performance-budget.yml 的 per-chunk 腿。

Generated by Claude Code

LANDED — 83d4fda16 on origin/main. domain:devx @ objectui execution seat, PM session session_01FhBNJcLRZLe8M87VcUgpKr, R47, 2026-09-08T09:45Z. PR #8543 (card objectui#8479), merged first pass.

Landing probe, on a re-fetched `origin/main` (`83d4fda16`)

Every row is git grep -c -F … origin/main -- scripts/__tests__/check-unused-dependencies.test.ts.

probe	expect	read
`REPOSITORY_SCAN`	> 0	4 (the declaration + three readers)
`} = REPOSITORY_SCAN;` — the readers	3	3
negative — `} = analyze(repoRoot);`, a per-test walk	0	0
⭐ firing control — `this repository`, present before and after	> 0	4
⭐ nonsense control — `zzq-not-a-real-token-8479`	0	0

⚠️ Both zeros were re-taken because the first attempt ran the probe from the wrong directory and returned exit 128 — not a git repository — which prints as no output and would have read as a clean zero if the exit code had not been captured. ⇒ Re-run from the repository, both zeros are exit 1 (a real no-match). ⭐ That is the same class as the $-anchor case on objectui#8465 today: a zero that is not a reading.

⛔ The merge is NOT the proof, and this card does not close on it

main's CI push run for 83d4fda16 is 34209955709, still in progress at 09:44Z. The claim this card makes is that the coverage gate has not been evaluated for 84 consecutive push runs; the only thing that falsifies that going forward is a green main push run, ⛔ not a merged PR.

⇒ This seat will read 34209955709 to completion and report the verdict here. Two outcomes, both stated in advance so neither can be narrated after the fact:

Green ⇒ the coverage thresholds are evaluated on main again for the first time since 2026-09-07T08:28:39Z, and this card is done.
Still red ⇒ there is a second failure behind the one that was fixed, and its name is the next deliverable. ⚠️ The dev flagged exactly this possibility rather than assuming its fix was sufficient: Test (coverage shard 2/4) failed on many runs across the streak — including the streak's first four, where it was the only red shard — and it never reproduced that one, so it has no name for it. ⇒ If shard 2 reds now, that is a new card, ⛔ not this one re-opened.

What is now on `main`

Three tests that each ran the same whole-repository walk (47 manifests, >1000 files) inside a bounded assertion window now read one hoisted REPOSITORY_SCAN computed at module scope, where the cost lands in the import phase that no timeout governs. ⛔ Not beforeAll, which would have traded the 15 s testTimeout for the narrower hookTimeout default. ⛔ No assertion changed, ⛔ no timeout raised, ⛔ no threshold lowered, ⛔ no continue-on-error, ⛔ no test skipped.

⭐ The class behind it is objectui#8545, and the same instance — same file, same assertion — was already filed weeks ago as objectui#8380, whose own suggested remedy was the timeout raise this PR deliberately refused.

Generated by Claude Code

⭐ VERIFIED — main's CI is GREEN. The coverage gate has been evaluated for the first time since 2026-09-07T08:28:39Z. domain:devx @ objectui execution seat, PM session session_01FhBNJcLRZLe8M87VcUgpKr, R47, 2026-09-08T10:19Z.

This is the reading this card was owed. ⛔ The merge was not the proof; this run is.

Run `34209955709`, `main` push on `83d4fda16` — every job

Test (coverage shard 1/4)          success     ← the shard that was red
Test (coverage shard 2/4)          success
Test (coverage shard 3/4)          success
Test (coverage shard 4/4)          success
Test (coverage)                    success     ← ⭐ THE SENTINEL
Build & E2E                        success
Build Docs                         success
Type Check                         success
Changeset Fixed Group Check        success
Test (shard ${{ matrix.shard }}/4) skipped

⭐ Test (coverage) passing is the load-bearing row, ⛔ not the four green shards. That is the sentinel whose whole job is to distinguish "the gate ran and said no" from "the gate did not run", and for 84 consecutive push runs it had been reporting the second:

##[error]shards=failure blobs=skipped merge=skipped report=skipped —
no complete merged report was produced for … ,
so the coverage thresholds were never evaluated on this commit

⇒ It is now producing a merged report and evaluating the thresholds. The streak — 84 consecutive failures, last green 3c6394cb2 @ 2026-09-07T08:28:39Z, control 116 successes in the same 400-run window — is broken at 83d4fda16.

⚠️ The outcome that did NOT happen, recorded because it was named in advance

The prediction posted here before this run completed listed two outcomes, and the second was: still red ⇒ there is a second failure behind the one that was fixed. The dev flagged the specific candidate — Test (coverage shard 2/4) was red across much of the streak, including its first four runs where it was the only red shard, and it was never reproduced, so nobody had a name for it.

⇒ Shard 2/4 is green on this run. ⛔ That does not prove the shard-2 case is gone — it was intermittent by nature and one green run cannot retire an intermittent failure. What it does mean is that ⛔ no new card is owed today, and that if shard 2 reds again it is a new name to read, ⛔ not this card re-opened.

One correction to the LANDED note above

That note said "this card does not close on it". The card was already closed by Fixes #8479 at merge — the correct behaviour for ending A, where the failing test turned out to be in this lane and was fixed here. ⇒ The sentence was wrong about the card's state; what it was reaching for, and what stands, is that the merge was not the proof. This comment is that proof.

⭐ objectui#8380 records the same instance — same file, same assertion — filed weeks before anyone acted on it. It is fixed by 83d4fda16 and this reading applies to it too; ⛔ closing and grading it remain the triage seat's.

Generated by Claude Code

main's CI workflow has failed 66 consecutive runs — the coverage gate has not been evaluated on any commit since 2026-09-07T08:28Z #8479

Description

The reading

What fails, and what that costs

⚠️ What this is NOT — stated because the obvious inference is wrong

Why it is filed rather than repaired

Activity

os-zhuang commented on Sep 8, 2026

分诊路由 — domain:devx · pm:queue · priority:p1 · type Bug

⚠️ 现读：仍在红，而且断流比卡里写的更长

⭐ 卡的对照做得对，本席点出它为什么是这张卡成立的关键

⭐ 真正的损害不是「CI 红」，是门根本没跑

定级 — priority:p1

⭐ 卡的三条「这不是什么」全部重要，本席逐条保留，⚠️ 其中一条会被人读错

承接顺序 —— 第一步是读日志，⛔ 不是改任何代码

⭐ 卡记录的那个时间巧合，本席按它的分寸保留

车道 — domain:devx

type = Bug

claude commented on Sep 8, 2026

claude commented on Sep 8, 2026

⭐ The narrowing this seat measured, which the card and the triage comment do not have

What this seat read in that job's log, ⛔ and what it refuses to conclude from it

The damage, so the shape of an acceptable fix is not misread

Scope, and the exit this card expects

Card statuses, read on GitHub at 2026-09-08T07:45Z — ⛔ not taken from any card's own record

Requirements

What a good report looks like

决策分析四轴 — 若修法有多于一个方向,按此四轴分析

baozhoutao commented on Sep 8, 2026

claude commented on Sep 8, 2026

The name, which is what this card asked for

⛔ Two claims this seat put in the brief that are FALSE, corrected publicly

The fix, checked against the tree

Evidence

os-zhuang commented on Sep 8, 2026

⭐ 分诊追补 —— 本卡第一步要的那个答案已经有了，在 #8380 上

⭐⭐ 而机制比本卡（与本席）设想的都更结构化

⭐ 本卡的「⛔ 不要止血」那条约束被独立地遵守了

现状与验收

claude commented on Sep 8, 2026

Landing probe, on a re-fetched origin/main (83d4fda16)

⛔ The merge is NOT the proof, and this card does not close on it

What is now on main

claude commented on Sep 8, 2026

Run 34209955709, main push on 83d4fda16 — every job

⚠️ The outcome that did NOT happen, recorded because it was named in advance

One correction to the LANDED note above

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

分诊路由 — `domain:devx` · `pm:queue` · `priority:p1` · type Bug

定级 — `priority:p1`

车道 — `domain:devx`

Landing probe, on a re-fetched `origin/main` (`83d4fda16`)

What is now on `main`

Run `34209955709`, `main` push on `83d4fda16` — every job