nucleic/round2_prompts.jsonl

{"prompt":"src/checkout/b01l001.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter checkout-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/checkout\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-001] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-01-001] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-01-001] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-01-001] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-001] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-01-001] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-01-001] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-01-001] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/checkout/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryWorker (B01L002): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L003: documente contrat; évalue risques","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L004: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in inventory (B01L005): 契約、失敗例、実例を含む短い保守向けドキュメントを残して. 技術的な前提: inventory module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the fraud handoff (B01L006). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw checkout retries spike (B01L007): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the inventory flow (B01L008): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L009: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the checkout path (B01L010): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B01L011, the inventory module: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the fraud path (B01L012). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our checkout worker (B01L013). From the incident-room: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L014: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's fraud rollout (B01L015)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/checkout/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-1-115\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-015\n\n{\"source\":\"inventory\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-015-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninventory.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ncheckout.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nfraud.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A checkout incident report (B01L016)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter checkout-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/checkout\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-016] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-01-016] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-01-016] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-01-016] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-016] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-01-016] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-01-016] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-01-016] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/checkout/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The inventory branch (B01L017): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One fraud caller (B01L018). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L019: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L020: sequence migration; document contract","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the fraud module (B01L021)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter checkout-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/checkout\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-021] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-01-021] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-01-021] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-01-021] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-021] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-01-021] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-01-021] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-01-021] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/checkout/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the checkout branch (B01L022): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L023: corrige flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the fraud failure (B01L024). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/checkout/b01l025.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/checkout/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-1-125\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-025\n\n{\"source\":\"inventory\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-025-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninventory.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ncheckout.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nfraud.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: 请检查这次改动的具体风险，不要修改代码. 技术上下文： Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"src/inventory/b01l026.ts: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudWorker (B01L027): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[CHEC-1128]: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L029: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L030: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the checkout handoff (B01L031): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw inventory retries spike (B01L032). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L033: patch stale flag; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L034: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the inventory path (B01L035): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B01L036, the fraud module. From the staff-note: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the checkout path (B01L037)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-037 route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-01-037 subject=u-19 scopes=checkout:write,inventory:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  inventory snapshot_loaded request_id=req-01-037 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  fraud lease_expiring request_id=req-01-037 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR checkout commit_failed request_id=req-01-037 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-01-037 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  checkout request_resumed request_id=req-01-037 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  fraud lease_owner_changed request_id=req-01-037 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  checkout commit_ok request_id=req-01-037 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-01-037 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-01-037 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-01-037 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-01-037 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-037-replay route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L038: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This fraud module (B01L039)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make checkout reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads inventory from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a fraud event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's checkout rollout (B01L040): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A inventory incident report (B01L041): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L042: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L043: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the inventory path (B01L044): 合并重复路径，但保持公开行为完全不变. 技术上下文： Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the fraud worker (B01L045): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the checkout module (B01L046). Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L047: patch stale flag; trace retry loop","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L048: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the checkout failure (B01L049). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L050: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/fraud/b01l051.ts: branche les états loading, empty, error et success de façon accessible. Contexte technique : The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L052: assess risks; trace retry loop","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L053: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the fraud worker (B01L054): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in checkout (B01L055)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/checkout/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-1-155\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-055\n\n{\"source\":\"inventory\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-055-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninventory.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ncheckout.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nfraud.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the inventory handoff (B01L056): führe die doppelten Pfade zusammen, ohne externes Verhalten zu ändern. Technischer Kontext: inventory module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw fraud retries spike (B01L057)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-057 route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-01-057 subject=u-19 scopes=checkout:write,inventory:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  inventory snapshot_loaded request_id=req-01-057 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  fraud lease_expiring request_id=req-01-057 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR checkout commit_failed request_id=req-01-057 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-01-057 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  checkout request_resumed request_id=req-01-057 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  fraud lease_owner_changed request_id=req-01-057 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  checkout commit_ok request_id=req-01-057 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-01-057 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-01-057 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-01-057 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-01-057 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-057-replay route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the checkout flow (B01L058). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the inventory guard (B01L059)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make checkout reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads inventory from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a fraud event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: 移行順序、依存関係、metrics、rollback を整理して. 技術的な前提: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the fraud path (B01L060)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/checkout/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-1-160\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-060\n\n{\"source\":\"inventory\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-060-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninventory.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ncheckout.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nfraud.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: führe die doppelten Pfade zusammen, ohne externes Verhalten zu ändern. Technischer Kontext: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B01L061, the checkout module: completa el endpoint con validación, auth e idempotency. Contexto técnico: checkout module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the inventory path (B01L062). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our fraud worker (B01L063). From the incident-room: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This checkout module (B01L064)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make checkout reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads inventory from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a fraud event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L065: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A fraud incident report (B01L066)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter checkout-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/checkout\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-066] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-01-066] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-01-066] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-01-066] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-066] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-01-066] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-01-066] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-01-066] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/checkout/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L067: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One inventory caller (B01L068)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/checkout/resolver.ts b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.inventory.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.inventory.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('checkout.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to inventory. No schema or API changes intended. The fraud consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L069: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the checkout worker (B01L070). Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the inventory module (B01L071): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the fraud branch (B01L072)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-072 route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-01-072 subject=u-19 scopes=checkout:write,inventory:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  inventory snapshot_loaded request_id=req-01-072 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  fraud lease_expiring request_id=req-01-072 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR checkout commit_failed request_id=req-01-072 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-01-072 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  checkout request_resumed request_id=req-01-072 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  fraud lease_owner_changed request_id=req-01-072 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  checkout commit_ok request_id=req-01-072 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-01-072 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-01-072 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-01-072 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-01-072 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-072-replay route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L073: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the inventory failure (B01L074). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/fraud/b01l075.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/checkout/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-1-175\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-075\n\n{\"source\":\"inventory\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-075-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninventory.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ncheckout.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nfraud.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: verbinde Loading-, Empty-, Error- und Success-State barrierefrei. Technischer Kontext: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"src/checkout/b01l076.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter checkout-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/checkout\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-076] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-01-076] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-01-076] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-01-076] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-076] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-01-076] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-01-076] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-01-076] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/checkout/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryWorker (B01L077)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-077 route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-01-077 subject=u-19 scopes=checkout:write,inventory:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  inventory snapshot_loaded request_id=req-01-077 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  fraud lease_expiring request_id=req-01-077 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR checkout commit_failed request_id=req-01-077 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-01-077 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  checkout request_resumed request_id=req-01-077 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  fraud lease_owner_changed request_id=req-01-077 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  checkout commit_ok request_id=req-01-077 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-01-077 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-01-077 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-01-077 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-01-077 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-077-replay route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: avalie a mudança e aponte riscos concretos sem editar o código. Contexto técnico: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L078: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the checkout worker (B01L079)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make checkout reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads inventory from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a fraud event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in inventory (B01L080): The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the incident-room can act on the first while the staff-note preserves the second. Check interactions across checkout, inventory, fraud.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the fraud handoff (B01L081). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L082: trace retry loop; assess risks","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the inventory flow (B01L083)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/checkout/resolver.ts b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.inventory.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.inventory.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('checkout.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to inventory. No schema or API changes intended. The fraud consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the fraud guard (B01L084): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the checkout path (B01L085): The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the incident-room can act on the first while the staff-note preserves the second. Check interactions across checkout, inventory, fraud.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B01L086, the inventory module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter checkout-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/checkout\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-086] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-01-086] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-01-086] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-01-086] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-086] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-01-086] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-01-086] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-01-086] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/checkout/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the fraud path (B01L087)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-087 route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-01-087 subject=u-19 scopes=checkout:write,inventory:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  inventory snapshot_loaded request_id=req-01-087 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  fraud lease_expiring request_id=req-01-087 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR checkout commit_failed request_id=req-01-087 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-01-087 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  checkout request_resumed request_id=req-01-087 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  fraud lease_owner_changed request_id=req-01-087 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  checkout commit_ok request_id=req-01-087 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-01-087 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-01-087 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-01-087 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-01-087 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-087-replay route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L088: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This inventory module (B01L089). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's fraud rollout (B01L090)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/checkout/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-1-190\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-090\n\n{\"source\":\"inventory\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-090-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninventory.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ncheckout.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nfraud.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A checkout incident report (B01L091)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter checkout-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/checkout\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-091] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-01-091] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-01-091] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-01-091] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-091] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-01-091] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-01-091] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-01-091] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/checkout/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The inventory branch (B01L092). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One fraud caller (B01L093)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/checkout/resolver.ts b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.inventory.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.inventory.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('checkout.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to inventory. No schema or API changes intended. The fraud consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L094: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the inventory worker (B01L095): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L096: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the checkout branch (B01L097)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-097 route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-01-097 subject=u-19 scopes=checkout:write,inventory:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  inventory snapshot_loaded request_id=req-01-097 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  fraud lease_expiring request_id=req-01-097 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR checkout commit_failed request_id=req-01-097 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-01-097 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  checkout request_resumed request_id=req-01-097 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  fraud lease_owner_changed request_id=req-01-097 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  checkout commit_ok request_id=req-01-097 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-01-097 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-01-097 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-01-097 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-01-097 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-097-replay route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B01L098 mentions the inventory flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/checkout/resolver.ts b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.inventory.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.inventory.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('checkout.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to inventory. No schema or API changes intended. The fraud consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L099: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/checkout/b01l100.go: The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/inventory/b01l101.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter checkout-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/checkout\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-101] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-01-101] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-01-101] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-01-101] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-101] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-01-101] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-01-101] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-01-101] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/checkout/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudWorker (B01L102): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[CHEC-1203]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/checkout/resolver.ts b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.inventory.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.inventory.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('checkout.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to inventory. No schema or API changes intended. The fraud consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the inventory worker (B01L104): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in fraud (B01L105)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/checkout/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-1-205\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-105\n\n{\"source\":\"inventory\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-105-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninventory.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ncheckout.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nfraud.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the checkout handoff (B01L106): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw inventory retries spike (B01L107). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the fraud flow (B01L108): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L109: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the inventory path (B01L110)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/checkout/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-1-210\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-110\n\n{\"source\":\"inventory\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-110-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninventory.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ncheckout.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nfraud.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L111: assess risks; document contract","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the checkout path (B01L112). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L113: consolida ramas","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L114: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's checkout rollout (B01L115). This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A inventory incident report (B01L116)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter checkout-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/checkout\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-116] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-01-116] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-01-116] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-01-116] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-116] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-01-116] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-01-116] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-01-116] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/checkout/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The fraud branch (B01L117)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-117 route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-01-117 subject=u-19 scopes=checkout:write,inventory:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  inventory snapshot_loaded request_id=req-01-117 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  fraud lease_expiring request_id=req-01-117 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR checkout commit_failed request_id=req-01-117 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-01-117 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  checkout request_resumed request_id=req-01-117 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  fraud lease_owner_changed request_id=req-01-117 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  checkout commit_ok request_id=req-01-117 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-01-117 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-01-117 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-01-117 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-01-117 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-117-replay route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L118: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the inventory path (B01L119). Occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the fraud worker (B01L120). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the checkout module (B01L121): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L122: trace retry loop; patch stale flag","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B01L123 mentions the fraud flow. This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the checkout failure (B01L124). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/inventory/b01l125.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/checkout/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-1-225\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-125\n\n{\"source\":\"inventory\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-125-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninventory.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ncheckout.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nfraud.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/fraud/b01l126.ts. From the staff-note: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutWorker (B01L127)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-127 route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-01-127 subject=u-19 scopes=checkout:write,inventory:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  inventory snapshot_loaded request_id=req-01-127 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  fraud lease_expiring request_id=req-01-127 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR checkout commit_failed request_id=req-01-127 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-01-127 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  checkout request_resumed request_id=req-01-127 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  fraud lease_owner_changed request_id=req-01-127 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  checkout commit_ok request_id=req-01-127 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-01-127 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-01-127 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-01-127 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-01-127 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-127-replay route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[INVE-1228]: Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the fraud worker (B01L129): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in checkout (B01L130). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the inventory handoff (B01L131)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter checkout-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/checkout\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-131] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-01-131] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-01-131] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-01-131] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-131] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-01-131] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-01-131] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-01-131] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/checkout/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L132: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the checkout flow (B01L133)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/checkout/resolver.ts b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.inventory.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.inventory.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('checkout.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to inventory. No schema or API changes intended. The fraud consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the inventory guard (B01L134)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make checkout reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads inventory from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a fraud event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the fraud path (B01L135). From the incident-room: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L136: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L137: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our fraud worker (B01L138). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This checkout module (B01L139): This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the incident-room can act on the first while the staff-note preserves the second. Check interactions across checkout, inventory, fraud.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's inventory rollout (B01L140): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A fraud incident report (B01L141). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L142: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One inventory caller (B01L143)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/checkout/resolver.ts b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.inventory.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.inventory.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('checkout.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to inventory. No schema or API changes intended. The fraud consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L144: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the checkout worker (B01L145)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/checkout/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-1-245\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-145\n\n{\"source\":\"inventory\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-145-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninventory.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ncheckout.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nfraud.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the inventory module (B01L146). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L147: wire accessible UI; document contract","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L148: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the inventory failure (B01L149). The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/fraud/b01l150.go: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/checkout/b01l151.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter checkout-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/checkout\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-151] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-01-151] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-01-151] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-01-151] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-151] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-01-151] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-01-151] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-01-151] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/checkout/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: corrige uniquement la branche fautive avec un test ciblé. Contexte technique : Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"InventoryWorker (B01L152): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[FRAU-1253]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/checkout/resolver.ts b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.inventory.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.inventory.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('checkout.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to inventory. No schema or API changes intended. The fraud consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the checkout worker (B01L154): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L155: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L156: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw checkout retries spike (B01L157)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-157 route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-01-157 subject=u-19 scopes=checkout:write,inventory:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  inventory snapshot_loaded request_id=req-01-157 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  fraud lease_expiring request_id=req-01-157 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR checkout commit_failed request_id=req-01-157 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-01-157 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  checkout request_resumed request_id=req-01-157 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  fraud lease_owner_changed request_id=req-01-157 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  checkout commit_ok request_id=req-01-157 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-01-157 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-01-157 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-01-157 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-01-157 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-157-replay route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L158: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the fraud guard (B01L159): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the checkout path (B01L160). From the staff-note: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B01L161, the inventory module: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the fraud path (B01L162)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-162 route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-01-162 subject=u-19 scopes=checkout:write,inventory:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  inventory snapshot_loaded request_id=req-01-162 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  fraud lease_expiring request_id=req-01-162 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR checkout commit_failed request_id=req-01-162 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-01-162 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  checkout request_resumed request_id=req-01-162 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  fraud lease_owner_changed request_id=req-01-162 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  checkout commit_ok request_id=req-01-162 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-01-162 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-01-162 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-01-162 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-01-162 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-162-replay route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our checkout worker (B01L163): prepare uma nota curta com contrato, falhas e exemplo real. Contexto técnico: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"This inventory module (B01L164): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's fraud rollout (B01L165). From the incident-room: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L166: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The inventory branch (B01L167). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One fraud caller (B01L168). From the staff-note: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the checkout path (B01L169)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make checkout reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads inventory from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a fraud event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the inventory worker (B01L170)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/checkout/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-1-270\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-170\n\n{\"source\":\"inventory\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-01-170-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninventory.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ncheckout.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nfraud.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the fraud module (B01L171)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter checkout-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/checkout\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-171] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-01-171] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-01-171] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-01-171] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-01-171] POST /v2/checkout idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-01-171] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-01-171] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-01-171] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/checkout/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the checkout branch (B01L172). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B01L173 mentions the inventory flow. This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are checkout, inventory, fraud, and the tone should fit a incident-room.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the fraud failure (B01L174): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/checkout/b01l175.go: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/inventory/b01l176.ts: The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L177: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[CHEC-1278]: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L179: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L180: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L181: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw inventory retries spike (B01L182)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-182 route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-01-182 subject=u-19 scopes=checkout:write,inventory:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  inventory snapshot_loaded request_id=req-01-182 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  fraud lease_expiring request_id=req-01-182 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR checkout commit_failed request_id=req-01-182 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-01-182 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  checkout request_resumed request_id=req-01-182 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  fraud lease_owner_changed request_id=req-01-182 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  checkout commit_ok request_id=req-01-182 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-01-182 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-01-182 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-01-182 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-01-182 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-01-182-replay route=/checkout/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the fraud flow (B01L183)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/checkout/resolver.ts b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.inventory.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.inventory.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('checkout.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to inventory. No schema or API changes intended. The fraud consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L184: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the inventory path (B01L185): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B01L186, the fraud module. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the checkout path, but verify its interactions with inventory and fraud. The request originated in a incident-room and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a staff-note.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the checkout path (B01L187): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L188: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L189: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L190: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L191: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The fraud branch (B01L192). From the staff-note: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One checkout caller (B01L193)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/checkout/resolver.ts b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/checkout/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.inventory.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.inventory.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('checkout.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/checkout/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to inventory. No schema or API changes intended. The fraud consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L194: trace retry loop; assess risks","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FraudCaseB01L195: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the checkout module (B01L196): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L197: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B01L198 mentions the fraud flow: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CheckoutCaseB01L199: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InventoryCaseB01L200: termine endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L001: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsWorker (B02L002)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-002 route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-02-002 subject=u-19 scopes=telemetry:write,exports:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  exports snapshot_loaded request_id=req-02-002 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  retention lease_expiring request_id=req-02-002 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR telemetry commit_failed request_id=req-02-002 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-02-002 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  telemetry request_resumed request_id=req-02-002 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  retention lease_owner_changed request_id=req-02-002 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  telemetry commit_ok request_id=req-02-002 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-02-002 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-02-002 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-02-002 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-02-002 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-002-replay route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[RETE-2103]: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the telemetry worker (B02L004): The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the ticket can act on the first while the design-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across telemetry, exports, retention.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in exports (B02L005): deja una guía breve con contrato, fallos y un ejemplo real. Contexto técnico: The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the retention handoff (B02L006)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter telemetry-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/telemetry\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-006] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-02-006] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-02-006] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-02-006] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-006] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-02-006] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-02-006] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-02-006] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/telemetry/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw telemetry retries spike (B02L007). From the ticket: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the exports flow (B02L008): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L009: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the telemetry path (B02L010). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are telemetry, exports, retention, and the tone should fit a ticket.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B02L011, the exports module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter telemetry-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/telemetry\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-011] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-02-011] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-02-011] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-02-011] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-011] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-02-011] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-02-011] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-02-011] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/telemetry/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: revisa el cambio y señala riesgos concretos sin tocar el código. Contexto técnico: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L012: finish authenticated endpoint; document contract","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our telemetry worker (B02L013)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.exports.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.exports.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('telemetry.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to exports. No schema or API changes intended. The retention consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This exports module (B02L014): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's retention rollout (B02L015)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/telemetry/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-2-115\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-015\n\n{\"source\":\"exports\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-015-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexports.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ntelemetry.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nretention.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L016: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The exports branch (B02L017). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One retention caller (B02L018). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the telemetry path (B02L019). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the exports worker (B02L020). Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the retention module (B02L021): 查明 retry 循环的根因，并用回归测试证明. 技术上下文： retention module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the telemetry branch (B02L022): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L023: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L024: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/telemetry/b02l025.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/telemetry/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-2-125\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-025\n\n{\"source\":\"exports\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-025-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexports.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ntelemetry.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nretention.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L026: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L027: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[TELE-2128]. From the design-chat: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L029: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in retention (B02L030): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the telemetry handoff (B02L031): This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the ticket can act on the first while the design-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across telemetry, exports, retention.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw exports retries spike (B02L032)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-032 route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-02-032 subject=u-19 scopes=telemetry:write,exports:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  exports snapshot_loaded request_id=req-02-032 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  retention lease_expiring request_id=req-02-032 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR telemetry commit_failed request_id=req-02-032 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-02-032 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  telemetry request_resumed request_id=req-02-032 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  retention lease_owner_changed request_id=req-02-032 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  telemetry commit_ok request_id=req-02-032 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-02-032 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-02-032 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-02-032 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-02-032 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-032-replay route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the retention flow (B02L033): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L034: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L035: corrige flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B02L036, the retention module: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the telemetry path (B02L037)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-037 route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-02-037 subject=u-19 scopes=telemetry:write,exports:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  exports snapshot_loaded request_id=req-02-037 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  retention lease_expiring request_id=req-02-037 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR telemetry commit_failed request_id=req-02-037 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-02-037 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  telemetry request_resumed request_id=req-02-037 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  retention lease_owner_changed request_id=req-02-037 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  telemetry commit_ok request_id=req-02-037 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-02-037 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-02-037 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-02-037 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-02-037 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-037-replay route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our exports worker (B02L038): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This retention module (B02L039)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make telemetry reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads exports from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a retention event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's telemetry rollout (B02L040): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L041: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The retention branch (B02L042). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One telemetry caller (B02L043)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.exports.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.exports.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('telemetry.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to exports. No schema or API changes intended. The retention consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the exports path (B02L044)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make telemetry reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads exports from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a retention event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the retention worker (B02L045). This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are telemetry, exports, retention, and the tone should fit a ticket.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L046: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the exports branch (B02L047)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-047 route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-02-047 subject=u-19 scopes=telemetry:write,exports:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  exports snapshot_loaded request_id=req-02-047 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  retention lease_expiring request_id=req-02-047 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR telemetry commit_failed request_id=req-02-047 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-02-047 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  telemetry request_resumed request_id=req-02-047 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  retention lease_owner_changed request_id=req-02-047 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  telemetry commit_ok request_id=req-02-047 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-02-047 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-02-047 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-02-047 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-02-047 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-047-replay route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B02L048 mentions the retention flow. Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the telemetry failure (B02L049)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make telemetry reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads exports from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a retention event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/exports/b02l050.go. Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/retention/b02l051.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter telemetry-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/telemetry\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-051] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-02-051] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-02-051] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-02-051] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-051] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-02-051] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-02-051] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-02-051] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/telemetry/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L052: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L053: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L054: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in telemetry (B02L055)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/telemetry/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-2-155\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-055\n\n{\"source\":\"exports\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-055-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexports.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ntelemetry.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nretention.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the exports handoff (B02L056): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw retention retries spike (B02L057): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the telemetry flow (B02L058): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the exports guard (B02L059). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the retention path (B02L060)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/telemetry/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-2-160\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-060\n\n{\"source\":\"exports\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-060-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexports.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ntelemetry.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nretention.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L061: sequence migration; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L062: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our retention worker (B02L063). Occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L064: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L065: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L066: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L067: merge duplicate branches; sequence migration","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One exports caller (B02L068)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.exports.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.exports.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('telemetry.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to exports. No schema or API changes intended. The retention consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the retention path (B02L069)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make telemetry reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads exports from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a retention event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L070: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the exports module (B02L071)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter telemetry-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/telemetry\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-071] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-02-071] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-02-071] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-02-071] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-071] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-02-071] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-02-071] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-02-071] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/telemetry/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: propose un ordre, les dépendances, les métriques et le rollback. Contexte technique : Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the retention branch (B02L072): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L073: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L074: ligue UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"tools/retention/b02l075.go. From the ticket: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L076: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsWorker (B02L077)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-077 route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-02-077 subject=u-19 scopes=telemetry:write,exports:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  exports snapshot_loaded request_id=req-02-077 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  retention lease_expiring request_id=req-02-077 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR telemetry commit_failed request_id=req-02-077 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-02-077 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  telemetry request_resumed request_id=req-02-077 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  retention lease_owner_changed request_id=req-02-077 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  telemetry commit_ok request_id=req-02-077 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-02-077 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-02-077 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-02-077 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-02-077 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-077-replay route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: prepare uma nota curta com contrato, falhas e exemplo real. Contexto técnico: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"[RETE-2178]: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L079: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L080: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the retention handoff (B02L081): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L082: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the exports flow (B02L083). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are telemetry, exports, retention, and the tone should fit a ticket.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the retention guard (B02L084)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make telemetry reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads exports from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a retention event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: 请整理一份简短维护文档，包含契约、失败场景和真实示例. 技术上下文： Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L085: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B02L086, the exports module. This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are telemetry, exports, retention, and the tone should fit a ticket.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L087: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L088: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This exports module (B02L089): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L090: 移行順序を整理","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"A telemetry incident report (B02L091): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the ticket can act on the first while the design-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across telemetry, exports, retention.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L092: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One retention caller (B02L093). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the telemetry path (B02L094): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the exports worker (B02L095)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/telemetry/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-2-195\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-095\n\n{\"source\":\"exports\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-095-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexports.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ntelemetry.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nretention.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the retention module (B02L096): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the telemetry branch (B02L097)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-097 route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-02-097 subject=u-19 scopes=telemetry:write,exports:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  exports snapshot_loaded request_id=req-02-097 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  retention lease_expiring request_id=req-02-097 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR telemetry commit_failed request_id=req-02-097 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-02-097 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  telemetry request_resumed request_id=req-02-097 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  retention lease_owner_changed request_id=req-02-097 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  telemetry commit_ok request_id=req-02-097 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-02-097 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-02-097 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-02-097 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-02-097 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-097-replay route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: korrigiere nur den falschen Zweig und ergänze einen gezielten Test. Technischer Kontext: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B02L098 mentions the exports flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.exports.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.exports.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('telemetry.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to exports. No schema or API changes intended. The retention consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L099: merge duplicate branches; patch stale flag","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/telemetry/b02l100.go. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/exports/b02l101.ts. This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are telemetry, exports, retention, and the tone should fit a ticket.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L102: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L103: sequence migration; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the exports worker (B02L104): The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the ticket can act on the first while the design-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across telemetry, exports, retention.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in retention (B02L105): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the telemetry handoff (B02L106)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter telemetry-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/telemetry\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-106] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-02-106] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-02-106] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-02-106] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-106] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-02-106] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-02-106] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-02-106] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/telemetry/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw exports retries spike (B02L107). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the retention flow (B02L108): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the telemetry guard (B02L109): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L110: sequence migration; document contract","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L111: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the telemetry path (B02L112)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-112 route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-02-112 subject=u-19 scopes=telemetry:write,exports:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  exports snapshot_loaded request_id=req-02-112 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  retention lease_expiring request_id=req-02-112 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR telemetry commit_failed request_id=req-02-112 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-02-112 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  telemetry request_resumed request_id=req-02-112 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  retention lease_owner_changed request_id=req-02-112 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  telemetry commit_ok request_id=req-02-112 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-02-112 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-02-112 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-02-112 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-02-112 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-112-replay route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our exports worker (B02L113)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.exports.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.exports.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('telemetry.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to exports. No schema or API changes intended. The retention consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This retention module (B02L114)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make telemetry reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads exports from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a retention event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's telemetry rollout (B02L115): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L116: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The retention branch (B02L117)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-117 route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-02-117 subject=u-19 scopes=telemetry:write,exports:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  exports snapshot_loaded request_id=req-02-117 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  retention lease_expiring request_id=req-02-117 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR telemetry commit_failed request_id=req-02-117 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-02-117 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  telemetry request_resumed request_id=req-02-117 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  retention lease_owner_changed request_id=req-02-117 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  telemetry commit_ok request_id=req-02-117 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-02-117 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-02-117 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-02-117 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-02-117 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-117-replay route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One telemetry caller (B02L118)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.exports.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.exports.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('telemetry.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to exports. No schema or API changes intended. The retention consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the exports path (B02L119)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make telemetry reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads exports from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a retention event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the retention worker (B02L120)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/telemetry/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-2-220\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-120\n\n{\"source\":\"exports\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-120-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexports.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ntelemetry.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nretention.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the telemetry module (B02L121): propose un ordre, les dépendances, les métriques et le rollback. Contexte technique : This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the ticket can act on the first while the design-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across telemetry, exports, retention.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the exports branch (B02L122). From the design-chat: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B02L123 mentions the retention flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.exports.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.exports.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('telemetry.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to exports. No schema or API changes intended. The retention consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the telemetry failure (B02L124): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/exports/b02l125.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/telemetry/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-2-225\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-125\n\n{\"source\":\"exports\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-125-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexports.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ntelemetry.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nretention.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/retention/b02l126.ts. Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryWorker (B02L127): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L128: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the retention worker (B02L129). This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are telemetry, exports, retention, and the tone should fit a ticket.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L130: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the exports handoff (B02L131): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L132: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the telemetry flow (B02L133): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the exports guard (B02L134). From the design-chat: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L135: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B02L136, the telemetry module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter telemetry-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/telemetry\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-136] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-02-136] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-02-136] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-02-136] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-136] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-02-136] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-02-136] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-02-136] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/telemetry/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the exports path (B02L137). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our retention worker (B02L138). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This telemetry module (B02L139)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make telemetry reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads exports from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a retention event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's exports rollout (B02L140): Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the ticket can act on the first while the design-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across telemetry, exports, retention.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A retention incident report (B02L141): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The telemetry branch (B02L142). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One exports caller (B02L143): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the retention path (B02L144)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make telemetry reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads exports from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a retention event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the telemetry worker (B02L145)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/telemetry/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-2-245\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-145\n\n{\"source\":\"exports\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-145-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexports.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ntelemetry.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nretention.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L146: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the retention branch (B02L147). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are telemetry, exports, retention, and the tone should fit a ticket.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B02L148 mentions the telemetry flow: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the exports failure (B02L149)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make telemetry reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads exports from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a retention event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/retention/b02l150.go. The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/telemetry/b02l151.ts: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L152: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[RETE-2253]: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the telemetry worker (B02L154)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make telemetry reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads exports from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a retention event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in exports (B02L155)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/telemetry/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-2-255\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-155\n\n{\"source\":\"exports\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-155-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexports.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ntelemetry.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nretention.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: loading、empty、error、success を接続し accessibility も守って. 技術的な前提: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L156: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw telemetry retries spike (B02L157): führe die doppelten Pfade zusammen, ohne externes Verhalten zu ändern. Technischer Kontext: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L158: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the retention guard (B02L159). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are telemetry, exports, retention, and the tone should fit a ticket.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the telemetry path (B02L160)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/telemetry/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-2-260\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-160\n\n{\"source\":\"exports\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-160-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexports.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ntelemetry.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nretention.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L161: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L162: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L163: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L164: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's retention rollout (B02L165): avalie a mudança e aponte riscos concretos sem editar o código. Contexto técnico: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"A telemetry incident report (B02L166): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The exports branch (B02L167). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One retention caller (B02L168)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.exports.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.exports.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('telemetry.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to exports. No schema or API changes intended. The retention consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the telemetry path (B02L169). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the exports worker (B02L170). From the design-chat: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the retention module (B02L171): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the telemetry branch (B02L172)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-172 route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-02-172 subject=u-19 scopes=telemetry:write,exports:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  exports snapshot_loaded request_id=req-02-172 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  retention lease_expiring request_id=req-02-172 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR telemetry commit_failed request_id=req-02-172 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-02-172 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  telemetry request_resumed request_id=req-02-172 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  retention lease_owner_changed request_id=req-02-172 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  telemetry commit_ok request_id=req-02-172 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-02-172 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-02-172 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-02-172 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-02-172 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-172-replay route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L173: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the retention failure (B02L174): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/telemetry/b02l175.go: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L176: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionWorker (B02L177)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-177 route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-02-177 subject=u-19 scopes=telemetry:write,exports:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  exports snapshot_loaded request_id=req-02-177 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  retention lease_expiring request_id=req-02-177 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR telemetry commit_failed request_id=req-02-177 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-02-177 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  telemetry request_resumed request_id=req-02-177 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  retention lease_owner_changed request_id=req-02-177 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  telemetry commit_ok request_id=req-02-177 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-02-177 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-02-177 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-02-177 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-02-177 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-02-177-replay route=/telemetry/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L178: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the exports worker (B02L179): regroupe les chemins dupliqués sans changer le comportement public. Contexte technique : Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the ticket can act on the first while the design-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across telemetry, exports, retention.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in retention (B02L180). From the design-chat: needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the telemetry handoff (B02L181). Uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L182: Retry-Schleife finden","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the retention flow (B02L183)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/telemetry/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.exports.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.exports.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('telemetry.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/telemetry/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to exports. No schema or API changes intended. The retention consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the telemetry guard (B02L184): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the exports path (B02L185)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/telemetry/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-2-285\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-185\n\n{\"source\":\"exports\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-185-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexports.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ntelemetry.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nretention.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B02L186, the retention module: Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the telemetry path (B02L187): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the ticket can act on the first while the design-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across telemetry, exports, retention.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our exports worker (B02L188): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L189: document contract; assess risks","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TelemetryCaseB02L190: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A exports incident report (B02L191). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RetentionCaseB02L192: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One telemetry caller (B02L193). This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are telemetry, exports, retention, and the tone should fit a ticket.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExportsCaseB02L194: assess risks; trace retry loop","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the retention worker (B02L195)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/telemetry/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-2-295\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-195\n\n{\"source\":\"exports\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-02-195-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexports.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ntelemetry.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nretention.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the telemetry module (B02L196)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter telemetry-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/telemetry\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-196] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-02-196] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-02-196] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-02-196] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-02-196] POST /v2/telemetry idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-02-196] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-02-196] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-02-196] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/telemetry/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the exports branch (B02L197): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B02L198 mentions the retention flow. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the telemetry path, but verify its interactions with exports and retention. The request originated in a ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a design-chat.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the telemetry failure (B02L199)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make telemetry reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads exports from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a retention event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/exports/b02l200.go. Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L001: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingWorker (B03L002)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-002 route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-03-002 subject=u-19 scopes=accessibility:write,routing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  routing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-03-002 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  localization lease_expiring request_id=req-03-002 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR accessibility commit_failed request_id=req-03-002 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-03-002 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  accessibility request_resumed request_id=req-03-002 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  localization lease_owner_changed request_id=req-03-002 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  accessibility commit_ok request_id=req-03-002 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-03-002 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-03-002 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-03-002 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-03-002 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-002-replay route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[LOCA-3103]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.routing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.routing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('accessibility.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to routing. No schema or API changes intended. The localization consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L004: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L005: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L006: évalue risques","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw accessibility retries spike (B03L007): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the routing flow (B03L008). From the product-brief: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the localization guard (B03L009). This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are accessibility, routing, localization, and the tone should fit a pairing.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the accessibility path (B03L010)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/accessibility/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-3-110\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-010\n\n{\"source\":\"routing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-010-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nrouting.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\naccessibility.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nlocalization.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L011: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L012: document contract; assess risks","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L013: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This routing module (B03L014). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are accessibility, routing, localization, and the tone should fit a pairing.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L015: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L016: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L017: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One localization caller (B03L018). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the accessibility path (B03L019)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make accessibility reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads routing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a localization event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the routing worker (B03L020): prepare uma nota curta com contrato, falhas e exemplo real. Contexto técnico: routing module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L021: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the accessibility branch (B03L022): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B03L023 mentions the routing flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.routing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.routing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('accessibility.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to routing. No schema or API changes intended. The localization consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the localization failure (B03L024): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/accessibility/b03l025.go: Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/routing/b03l026.ts. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationWorker (B03L027)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-027 route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-03-027 subject=u-19 scopes=accessibility:write,routing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  routing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-03-027 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  localization lease_expiring request_id=req-03-027 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR accessibility commit_failed request_id=req-03-027 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-03-027 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  accessibility request_resumed request_id=req-03-027 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  localization lease_owner_changed request_id=req-03-027 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  accessibility commit_ok request_id=req-03-027 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-03-027 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-03-027 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-03-027 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-03-027 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-027-replay route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[ACCE-3128]: Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the routing worker (B03L029)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make accessibility reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads routing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a localization event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in localization (B03L030). From the product-brief: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the accessibility handoff (B03L031)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter accessibility-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/accessibility\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-031] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-03-031] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-03-031] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-03-031] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-031] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-03-031] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-03-031] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-03-031] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/accessibility/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw routing retries spike (B03L032)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-032 route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-03-032 subject=u-19 scopes=accessibility:write,routing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  routing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-03-032 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  localization lease_expiring request_id=req-03-032 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR accessibility commit_failed request_id=req-03-032 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-03-032 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  accessibility request_resumed request_id=req-03-032 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  localization lease_owner_changed request_id=req-03-032 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  accessibility commit_ok request_id=req-03-032 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-03-032 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-03-032 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-03-032 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-03-032 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-032-replay route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L033: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the accessibility guard (B03L034). From the product-brief: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the routing path (B03L035): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B03L036, the localization module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter accessibility-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/accessibility\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-036] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-03-036] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-03-036] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-03-036] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-036] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-03-036] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-03-036] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-03-036] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/accessibility/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the accessibility path (B03L037)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-037 route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-03-037 subject=u-19 scopes=accessibility:write,routing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  routing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-03-037 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  localization lease_expiring request_id=req-03-037 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR accessibility commit_failed request_id=req-03-037 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-03-037 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  accessibility request_resumed request_id=req-03-037 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  localization lease_owner_changed request_id=req-03-037 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  accessibility commit_ok request_id=req-03-037 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-03-037 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-03-037 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-03-037 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-03-037 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-037-replay route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our routing worker (B03L038): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This localization module (B03L039)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make accessibility reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads routing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a localization event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: loading、empty、error、success を接続し accessibility も守って. 技術的な前提: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's accessibility rollout (B03L040)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/accessibility/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-3-140\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-040\n\n{\"source\":\"routing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-040-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nrouting.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\naccessibility.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nlocalization.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A routing incident report (B03L041)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter accessibility-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/accessibility\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-041] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-03-041] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-03-041] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-03-041] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-041] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-03-041] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-03-041] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-03-041] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/accessibility/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The localization branch (B03L042)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-042 route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-03-042 subject=u-19 scopes=accessibility:write,routing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  routing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-03-042 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  localization lease_expiring request_id=req-03-042 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR accessibility commit_failed request_id=req-03-042 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-03-042 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  accessibility request_resumed request_id=req-03-042 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  localization lease_owner_changed request_id=req-03-042 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  accessibility commit_ok request_id=req-03-042 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-03-042 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-03-042 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-03-042 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-03-042 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-042-replay route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One accessibility caller (B03L043)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.routing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.routing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('accessibility.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to routing. No schema or API changes intended. The localization consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L044: avalie riscos","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L045: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L046: merge duplicate branches; patch stale flag","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L047: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B03L048 mentions the localization flow: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the accessibility failure (B03L049). From the pairing: needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/routing/b03l050.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/accessibility/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-3-150\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-050\n\n{\"source\":\"routing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-050-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nrouting.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\naccessibility.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nlocalization.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/localization/b03l051.ts. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L052: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[ROUT-3153]: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the localization worker (B03L054)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make accessibility reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads routing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a localization event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in accessibility (B03L055): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the routing handoff (B03L056). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are accessibility, routing, localization, and the tone should fit a pairing.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw localization retries spike (B03L057): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the accessibility flow (B03L058): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the routing guard (B03L059): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the localization path (B03L060): avalie a mudança e aponte riscos concretos sem editar o código. Contexto técnico: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B03L061, the accessibility module: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the routing path (B03L062). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our localization worker (B03L063): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L064: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's routing rollout (B03L065): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A localization incident report (B03L066)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter accessibility-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/accessibility\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-066] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-03-066] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-03-066] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-03-066] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-066] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-03-066] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-03-066] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-03-066] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/accessibility/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The accessibility branch (B03L067)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-067 route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-03-067 subject=u-19 scopes=accessibility:write,routing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  routing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-03-067 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  localization lease_expiring request_id=req-03-067 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR accessibility commit_failed request_id=req-03-067 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-03-067 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  accessibility request_resumed request_id=req-03-067 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  localization lease_owner_changed request_id=req-03-067 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  accessibility commit_ok request_id=req-03-067 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-03-067 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-03-067 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-03-067 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-03-067 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-067-replay route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One routing caller (B03L068): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the localization path (B03L069)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make accessibility reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads routing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a localization event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the accessibility worker (B03L070). From the product-brief: needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L071: API 契約を文書化","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L072: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L073: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the routing failure (B03L074): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/localization/b03l075.go: This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the pairing can act on the first while the product-brief preserves the second. Check interactions across accessibility, routing, localization.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/accessibility/b03l076.ts: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L077: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L078: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the accessibility worker (B03L079)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make accessibility reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads routing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a localization event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: 请检查这次改动的具体风险，不要修改代码. 技术上下文： Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in routing (B03L080): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L081: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L082: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the routing flow (B03L083)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.routing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.routing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('accessibility.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to routing. No schema or API changes intended. The localization consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the localization guard (B03L084)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make accessibility reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads routing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a localization event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L085: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B03L086, the routing module: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the localization path (B03L087): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our accessibility worker (B03L088): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This routing module (B03L089). Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's localization rollout (B03L090)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/accessibility/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-3-190\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-090\n\n{\"source\":\"routing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-090-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nrouting.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\naccessibility.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nlocalization.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A accessibility incident report (B03L091)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter accessibility-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/accessibility\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-091] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-03-091] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-03-091] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-03-091] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-091] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-03-091] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-03-091] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-03-091] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/accessibility/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L092: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One localization caller (B03L093). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are accessibility, routing, localization, and the tone should fit a pairing.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L094: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the routing worker (B03L095)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/accessibility/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-3-195\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-095\n\n{\"source\":\"routing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-095-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nrouting.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\naccessibility.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nlocalization.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L096: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the accessibility branch (B03L097). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B03L098 mentions the routing flow: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the localization failure (B03L099). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are accessibility, routing, localization, and the tone should fit a pairing.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/accessibility/b03l100.go: The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L101: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L102: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[ACCE-3203]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.routing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.routing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('accessibility.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to routing. No schema or API changes intended. The localization consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L104: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in localization (B03L105). From the pairing: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L106: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw routing retries spike (B03L107). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the localization flow (B03L108). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the accessibility guard (B03L109). From the pairing: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L110: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B03L111, the localization module: korrigiere nur den falschen Zweig und ergänze einen gezielten Test. Technischer Kontext: A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the accessibility path (B03L112)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-112 route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-03-112 subject=u-19 scopes=accessibility:write,routing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  routing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-03-112 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  localization lease_expiring request_id=req-03-112 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR accessibility commit_failed request_id=req-03-112 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-03-112 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  accessibility request_resumed request_id=req-03-112 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  localization lease_owner_changed request_id=req-03-112 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  accessibility commit_ok request_id=req-03-112 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-03-112 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-03-112 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-03-112 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-03-112 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-112-replay route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our routing worker (B03L113): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This localization module (B03L114). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are accessibility, routing, localization, and the tone should fit a pairing.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's accessibility rollout (B03L115): averigua por qué se repite el intento y demuéstralo con una prueba. Contexto técnico: accessibility module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"A routing incident report (B03L116): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L117: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One accessibility caller (B03L118): Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the pairing can act on the first while the product-brief preserves the second. Check interactions across accessibility, routing, localization.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L119: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L120: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the accessibility module (B03L121): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the pairing can act on the first while the product-brief preserves the second. Check interactions across accessibility, routing, localization.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the routing branch (B03L122)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-122 route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-03-122 subject=u-19 scopes=accessibility:write,routing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  routing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-03-122 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  localization lease_expiring request_id=req-03-122 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR accessibility commit_failed request_id=req-03-122 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-03-122 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  accessibility request_resumed request_id=req-03-122 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  localization lease_owner_changed request_id=req-03-122 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  accessibility commit_ok request_id=req-03-122 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-03-122 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-03-122 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-03-122 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-03-122 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-122-replay route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B03L123 mentions the localization flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.routing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.routing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('accessibility.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to routing. No schema or API changes intended. The localization consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the accessibility failure (B03L124): corrige uniquement la branche fautive avec un test ciblé. Contexte technique : A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L125: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/localization/b03l126.ts: The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityWorker (B03L127). From the pairing: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[ROUT-3228]: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L129: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L130: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L131: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw localization retries spike (B03L132): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the accessibility flow (B03L133): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the routing guard (B03L134). From the product-brief: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the localization path (B03L135). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B03L136, the accessibility module. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the routing path (B03L137)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-137 route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-03-137 subject=u-19 scopes=accessibility:write,routing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  routing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-03-137 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  localization lease_expiring request_id=req-03-137 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR accessibility commit_failed request_id=req-03-137 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-03-137 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  accessibility request_resumed request_id=req-03-137 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  localization lease_owner_changed request_id=req-03-137 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  accessibility commit_ok request_id=req-03-137 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-03-137 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-03-137 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-03-137 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-03-137 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-137-replay route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L138: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This accessibility module (B03L139): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's routing rollout (B03L140): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A localization incident report (B03L141)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter accessibility-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/accessibility\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-141] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-03-141] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-03-141] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-03-141] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-141] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-03-141] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-03-141] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-03-141] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/accessibility/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The accessibility branch (B03L142). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are accessibility, routing, localization, and the tone should fit a pairing.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One routing caller (B03L143)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.routing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.routing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('accessibility.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to routing. No schema or API changes intended. The localization consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the localization path (B03L144)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make accessibility reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads routing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a localization event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the accessibility worker (B03L145). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the routing module (B03L146). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are accessibility, routing, localization, and the tone should fit a pairing.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L147: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L148: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L149: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/localization/b03l150.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/accessibility/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-3-250\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-150\n\n{\"source\":\"routing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-150-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nrouting.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\naccessibility.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nlocalization.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/accessibility/b03l151.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter accessibility-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/accessibility\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-151] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-03-151] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-03-151] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-03-151] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-151] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-03-151] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-03-151] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-03-151] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/accessibility/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: reordena estas rutas duplicadas sin cambiar el comportamiento público. Contexto técnico: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"RoutingWorker (B03L152)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-152 route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-03-152 subject=u-19 scopes=accessibility:write,routing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  routing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-03-152 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  localization lease_expiring request_id=req-03-152 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR accessibility commit_failed request_id=req-03-152 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-03-152 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  accessibility request_resumed request_id=req-03-152 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  localization lease_owner_changed request_id=req-03-152 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  accessibility commit_ok request_id=req-03-152 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-03-152 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-03-152 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-03-152 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-03-152 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-152-replay route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[LOCA-3253]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.routing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.routing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('accessibility.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to routing. No schema or API changes intended. The localization consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L154: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in routing (B03L155). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the localization handoff (B03L156). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are accessibility, routing, localization, and the tone should fit a pairing.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw accessibility retries spike (B03L157). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the routing flow (B03L158). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are accessibility, routing, localization, and the tone should fit a pairing.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L159: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the accessibility path (B03L160)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/accessibility/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-3-260\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-160\n\n{\"source\":\"routing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-160-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nrouting.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\naccessibility.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nlocalization.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L161: patch stale flag; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the localization path (B03L162)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-162 route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-03-162 subject=u-19 scopes=accessibility:write,routing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  routing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-03-162 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  localization lease_expiring request_id=req-03-162 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR accessibility commit_failed request_id=req-03-162 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-03-162 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  accessibility request_resumed request_id=req-03-162 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  localization lease_owner_changed request_id=req-03-162 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  accessibility commit_ok request_id=req-03-162 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-03-162 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-03-162 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-03-162 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-03-162 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-03-162-replay route=/accessibility/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our accessibility worker (B03L163)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.routing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.routing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('accessibility.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to routing. No schema or API changes intended. The localization consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: propose un ordre, les dépendances, les métriques et le rollback. Contexte technique : Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"This routing module (B03L164)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make accessibility reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads routing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a localization event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: 合并重复路径，但保持公开行为完全不变. 技术上下文： Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L165: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A accessibility incident report (B03L166): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The routing branch (B03L167): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L168: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the accessibility path (B03L169): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L170: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the localization module (B03L171): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the accessibility branch (B03L172): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B03L173 mentions the routing flow: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the localization failure (B03L174): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/accessibility/b03l175.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/accessibility/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-3-275\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-175\n\n{\"source\":\"routing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-175-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nrouting.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\naccessibility.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nlocalization.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L176: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L177: document contract; finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[ACCE-3278]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.routing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.routing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('accessibility.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to routing. No schema or API changes intended. The localization consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L179: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in localization (B03L180)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/accessibility/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-3-280\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-180\n\n{\"source\":\"routing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-03-180-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nrouting.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\naccessibility.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nlocalization.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: propón una secuencia con dependencias, métricas y rollback. Contexto técnico: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the accessibility handoff (B03L181)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter accessibility-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/accessibility\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-181] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-03-181] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-03-181] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-03-181] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-03-181] POST /v2/accessibility idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-03-181] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-03-181] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-03-181] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/accessibility/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L182: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the localization flow (B03L183)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.routing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.routing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('accessibility.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to routing. No schema or API changes intended. The localization consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the accessibility guard (B03L184). From the product-brief: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the routing path (B03L185): Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the pairing can act on the first while the product-brief preserves the second. Check interactions across accessibility, routing, localization.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L186: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L187: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our routing worker (B03L188). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the accessibility path, but verify its interactions with routing and localization. The request originated in a pairing and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a product-brief.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This localization module (B03L189)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make accessibility reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads routing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a localization event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's accessibility rollout (B03L190): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RoutingCaseB03L191: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"LocalizationCaseB03L192: sequence migration; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One accessibility caller (B03L193)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/accessibility/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.routing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.routing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('accessibility.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/accessibility/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to routing. No schema or API changes intended. The localization consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the routing path (B03L194): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the localization worker (B03L195): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AccessibilityCaseB03L196: Zweige bündeln","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the routing branch (B03L197): führe die doppelten Pfade zusammen, ohne externes Verhalten zu ändern. Technischer Kontext: routing module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B03L198 mentions the localization flow. This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are accessibility, routing, localization, and the tone should fit a pairing.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the accessibility failure (B03L199). From the pairing: needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/routing/b03l200.go: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L001: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsWorker (B04L002): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L003: patch stale flag; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the identity worker (B04L004). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in sessions (B04L005)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-105\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-005\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-005-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: verbinde Loading-, Empty-, Error- und Success-State barrierefrei. Technischer Kontext: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the permissions handoff (B04L006): corrija somente o ramo errado e acrescente um teste focado. Contexto técnico: permissions module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw identity retries spike (B04L007): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the sessions flow (B04L008)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/identity/resolver.ts b/src/identity/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/identity/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/identity/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sessions.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sessions.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('identity.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sessions. No schema or API changes intended. The permissions consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the permissions guard (B04L009): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the identity path (B04L010). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the identity path, but verify its interactions with sessions and permissions. The request originated in a support-escalation and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a code-review.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B04L011, the sessions module. This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L012: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our identity worker (B04L013)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/identity/resolver.ts b/src/identity/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/identity/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/identity/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sessions.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sessions.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('identity.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sessions. No schema or API changes intended. The permissions consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This sessions module (B04L014)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make identity reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sessions from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a permissions event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L015: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A identity incident report (B04L016). Needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The sessions branch (B04L017): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L018: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L019: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the sessions worker (B04L020)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-120\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-020\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-020-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the permissions module (B04L021)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter identity-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/identity\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-021] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-04-021] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-04-021] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-04-021] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-021] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-04-021] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-04-021] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-04-021] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/identity/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L022: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B04L023 mentions the sessions flow: The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L024: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L025: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/sessions/b04l026.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter identity-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/identity\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-026] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-04-026] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-04-026] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-04-026] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-026] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-04-026] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-04-026] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-04-026] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/identity/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsWorker (B04L027)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-027 route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-04-027 subject=u-19 scopes=identity:write,sessions:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sessions snapshot_loaded request_id=req-04-027 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  permissions lease_expiring request_id=req-04-027 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR identity commit_failed request_id=req-04-027 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-04-027 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  identity request_resumed request_id=req-04-027 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  permissions lease_owner_changed request_id=req-04-027 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  identity commit_ok request_id=req-04-027 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-04-027 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-04-027 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-04-027 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-04-027 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-027-replay route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L028: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L029: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in permissions (B04L030)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-130\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-030\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-030-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the identity handoff (B04L031)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter identity-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/identity\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-031] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-04-031] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-04-031] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-04-031] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-031] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-04-031] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-04-031] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-04-031] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/identity/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw sessions retries spike (B04L032): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L033: Zweige bündeln","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L034: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the sessions path (B04L035)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-135\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-035\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-035-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B04L036, the permissions module: The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L037: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our sessions worker (B04L038): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This permissions module (B04L039). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the identity path, but verify its interactions with sessions and permissions. The request originated in a support-escalation and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a code-review.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's identity rollout (B04L040): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A sessions incident report (B04L041). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The permissions branch (B04L042): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One identity caller (B04L043). From the support-escalation: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the sessions path (B04L044): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the permissions worker (B04L045): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the identity module (B04L046). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the identity path, but verify its interactions with sessions and permissions. The request originated in a support-escalation and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a code-review.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the sessions branch (B04L047): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L048: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the identity failure (B04L049). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L050: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/permissions/b04l051.ts. This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityWorker (B04L052)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-052 route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-04-052 subject=u-19 scopes=identity:write,sessions:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sessions snapshot_loaded request_id=req-04-052 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  permissions lease_expiring request_id=req-04-052 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR identity commit_failed request_id=req-04-052 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-04-052 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  identity request_resumed request_id=req-04-052 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  permissions lease_owner_changed request_id=req-04-052 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  identity commit_ok request_id=req-04-052 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-04-052 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-04-052 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-04-052 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-04-052 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-052-replay route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L053: wire accessible UI; document contract","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the permissions worker (B04L054). Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in identity (B04L055)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-155\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-055\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-055-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the sessions handoff (B04L056). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw permissions retries spike (B04L057): Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the support-escalation can act on the first while the code-review preserves the second. Check interactions across identity, sessions, permissions.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L058: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the sessions guard (B04L059). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the permissions path (B04L060)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-160\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-060\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-060-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B04L061, the identity module. From the support-escalation: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the sessions path (B04L062)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-062 route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-04-062 subject=u-19 scopes=identity:write,sessions:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sessions snapshot_loaded request_id=req-04-062 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  permissions lease_expiring request_id=req-04-062 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR identity commit_failed request_id=req-04-062 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-04-062 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  identity request_resumed request_id=req-04-062 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  permissions lease_owner_changed request_id=req-04-062 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  identity commit_ok request_id=req-04-062 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-04-062 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-04-062 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-04-062 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-04-062 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-062-replay route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our permissions worker (B04L063). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the identity path, but verify its interactions with sessions and permissions. The request originated in a support-escalation and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a code-review.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L064: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L065: 安排迁移顺序","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L066: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L067: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One sessions caller (B04L068)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/identity/resolver.ts b/src/identity/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/identity/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/identity/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sessions.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sessions.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('identity.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sessions. No schema or API changes intended. The permissions consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the permissions path (B04L069): Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the support-escalation can act on the first while the code-review preserves the second. Check interactions across identity, sessions, permissions.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the identity worker (B04L070): The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the support-escalation can act on the first while the code-review preserves the second. Check interactions across identity, sessions, permissions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L071: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the permissions branch (B04L072)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-072 route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-04-072 subject=u-19 scopes=identity:write,sessions:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sessions snapshot_loaded request_id=req-04-072 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  permissions lease_expiring request_id=req-04-072 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR identity commit_failed request_id=req-04-072 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-04-072 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  identity request_resumed request_id=req-04-072 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  permissions lease_owner_changed request_id=req-04-072 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  identity commit_ok request_id=req-04-072 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-04-072 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-04-072 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-04-072 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-04-072 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-072-replay route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L073: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the sessions failure (B04L074)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make identity reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sessions from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a permissions event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/permissions/b04l075.go: una os caminhos duplicados sem alterar o comportamento público. Contexto técnico: permissions module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"src/identity/b04l076.ts. From the code-review: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsWorker (B04L077)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-077 route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-04-077 subject=u-19 scopes=identity:write,sessions:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sessions snapshot_loaded request_id=req-04-077 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  permissions lease_expiring request_id=req-04-077 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR identity commit_failed request_id=req-04-077 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-04-077 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  identity request_resumed request_id=req-04-077 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  permissions lease_owner_changed request_id=req-04-077 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  identity commit_ok request_id=req-04-077 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-04-077 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-04-077 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-04-077 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-04-077 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-077-replay route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[PERM-4178]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/identity/resolver.ts b/src/identity/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/identity/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/identity/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sessions.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sessions.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('identity.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sessions. No schema or API changes intended. The permissions consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the identity worker (B04L079). Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in sessions (B04L080). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the identity path, but verify its interactions with sessions and permissions. The request originated in a support-escalation and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a code-review.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the permissions handoff (B04L081)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter identity-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/identity\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-081] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-04-081] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-04-081] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-04-081] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-081] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-04-081] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-04-081] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-04-081] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/identity/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw identity retries spike (B04L082): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L083: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the permissions guard (B04L084). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the identity path, but verify its interactions with sessions and permissions. The request originated in a support-escalation and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a code-review.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the identity path (B04L085): revisa el cambio y señala riesgos concretos sin tocar el código. Contexto técnico: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B04L086, the sessions module: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the permissions path (B04L087). From the support-escalation: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L088: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This sessions module (B04L089)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make identity reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sessions from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a permissions event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: 请整理一份简短维护文档，包含契约、失败场景和真实示例. 技术上下文： Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's permissions rollout (B04L090): The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the support-escalation can act on the first while the code-review preserves the second. Check interactions across identity, sessions, permissions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L091: documenta contrato","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L092: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One permissions caller (B04L093): propose un ordre, les dépendances, les métriques et le rollback. Contexte technique : permissions module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the identity path (B04L094)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make identity reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sessions from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a permissions event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the sessions worker (B04L095)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-195\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-095\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-095-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L096: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the identity branch (B04L097). Uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L098: accessible UI を接続; 具体的なリスクを確認","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the permissions failure (B04L099)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make identity reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sessions from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a permissions event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/identity/b04l100.go. This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/sessions/b04l101.ts: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsWorker (B04L102): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L103: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the sessions worker (B04L104). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the identity path, but verify its interactions with sessions and permissions. The request originated in a support-escalation and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a code-review.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in permissions (B04L105): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the identity handoff (B04L106)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter identity-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/identity\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-106] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-04-106] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-04-106] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-04-106] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-106] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-04-106] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-04-106] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-04-106] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/identity/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L107: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L108: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the identity guard (B04L109). Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the sessions path (B04L110). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L111: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the identity path (B04L112)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-112 route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-04-112 subject=u-19 scopes=identity:write,sessions:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sessions snapshot_loaded request_id=req-04-112 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  permissions lease_expiring request_id=req-04-112 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR identity commit_failed request_id=req-04-112 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-04-112 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  identity request_resumed request_id=req-04-112 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  permissions lease_owner_changed request_id=req-04-112 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  identity commit_ok request_id=req-04-112 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-04-112 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-04-112 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-04-112 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-04-112 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-112-replay route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our sessions worker (B04L113). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L114: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's identity rollout (B04L115): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A sessions incident report (B04L116). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L117: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One identity caller (B04L118): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the sessions path (B04L119): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the permissions worker (B04L120)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-220\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-120\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-120-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the identity module (B04L121): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the sessions branch (B04L122): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B04L123 mentions the permissions flow. This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the identity failure (B04L124)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make identity reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sessions from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a permissions event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/sessions/b04l125.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-225\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-125\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-125-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/permissions/b04l126.ts. From the code-review: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityWorker (B04L127): ligue os estados loading, empty, error e success com acessibilidade. Contexto técnico: The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"[SESS-4228]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/identity/resolver.ts b/src/identity/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/identity/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/identity/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sessions.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sessions.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('identity.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sessions. No schema or API changes intended. The permissions consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the permissions worker (B04L129): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in identity (B04L130): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L131: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw permissions retries spike (B04L132): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the identity flow (B04L133): propón una secuencia con dependencias, métricas y rollback. Contexto técnico: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L134: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the permissions path (B04L135)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-235\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-135\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-135-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B04L136, the identity module. This raises an awkward scope question. The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L137: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L138: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This identity module (B04L139)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make identity reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sessions from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a permissions event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: prüfe die Änderung auf konkrete Risiken, ohne Dateien zu ändern. Technischer Kontext: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L140: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L141: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L142: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One sessions caller (B04L143): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the permissions path (B04L144)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make identity reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sessions from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a permissions event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the identity worker (B04L145): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the sessions module (B04L146): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L147: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B04L148 mentions the identity flow. From the code-review: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the sessions failure (B04L149): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/permissions/b04l150.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-250\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-150\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-150-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/identity/b04l151.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter identity-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/identity\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-151] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-04-151] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-04-151] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-04-151] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-151] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-04-151] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-04-151] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-04-151] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/identity/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsWorker (B04L152)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-152 route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-04-152 subject=u-19 scopes=identity:write,sessions:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sessions snapshot_loaded request_id=req-04-152 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  permissions lease_expiring request_id=req-04-152 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR identity commit_failed request_id=req-04-152 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-04-152 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  identity request_resumed request_id=req-04-152 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  permissions lease_owner_changed request_id=req-04-152 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  identity commit_ok request_id=req-04-152 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-04-152 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-04-152 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-04-152 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-04-152 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-152-replay route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[PERM-4253]: The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the identity worker (B04L154)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make identity reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sessions from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a permissions event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L155: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the permissions handoff (B04L156): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw identity retries spike (B04L157)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-157 route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-04-157 subject=u-19 scopes=identity:write,sessions:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sessions snapshot_loaded request_id=req-04-157 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  permissions lease_expiring request_id=req-04-157 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR identity commit_failed request_id=req-04-157 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-04-157 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  identity request_resumed request_id=req-04-157 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  permissions lease_owner_changed request_id=req-04-157 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  identity commit_ok request_id=req-04-157 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-04-157 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-04-157 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-04-157 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-04-157 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-157-replay route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the sessions flow (B04L158)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/identity/resolver.ts b/src/identity/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/identity/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/identity/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sessions.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sessions.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('identity.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sessions. No schema or API changes intended. The permissions consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the permissions guard (B04L159): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L160: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L161: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L162: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our identity worker (B04L163)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/identity/resolver.ts b/src/identity/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/identity/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/identity/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sessions.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sessions.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('identity.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sessions. No schema or API changes intended. The permissions consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L164: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's permissions rollout (B04L165)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-265\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-165\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-165-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A identity incident report (B04L166)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter identity-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/identity\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-166] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-04-166] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-04-166] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-04-166] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-166] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-04-166] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-04-166] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-04-166] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/identity/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: rédige une note mainteneur avec contrat, erreurs et exemple concret. Contexte technique : Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"The sessions branch (B04L167). From the support-escalation: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One permissions caller (B04L168). From the code-review: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the identity path (B04L169)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make identity reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sessions from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a permissions event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: rédige une note mainteneur avec contrat, erreurs et exemple concret. Contexte technique : Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the sessions worker (B04L170): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the permissions module (B04L171): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the identity branch (B04L172)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-172 route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-04-172 subject=u-19 scopes=identity:write,sessions:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sessions snapshot_loaded request_id=req-04-172 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  permissions lease_expiring request_id=req-04-172 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR identity commit_failed request_id=req-04-172 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-04-172 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  identity request_resumed request_id=req-04-172 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  permissions lease_owner_changed request_id=req-04-172 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  identity commit_ok request_id=req-04-172 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-04-172 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-04-172 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-04-172 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-04-172 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-04-172-replay route=/identity/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L173: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L174: patch stale flag; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L175: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/sessions/b04l176.ts. From the code-review: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsWorker (B04L177). This raises an awkward scope question. The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[IDEN-4278]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/identity/resolver.ts b/src/identity/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/identity/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/identity/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sessions.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sessions.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('identity.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sessions. No schema or API changes intended. The permissions consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L179: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in permissions (B04L180): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IdentityCaseB04L181: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw sessions retries spike (B04L182). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the identity path, but verify its interactions with sessions and permissions. The request originated in a support-escalation and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a code-review.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L183: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the identity guard (B04L184)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make identity reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sessions from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a permissions event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L185: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B04L186, the permissions module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter identity-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/identity\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-186] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-04-186] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-04-186] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-04-186] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-04-186] POST /v2/identity idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-04-186] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-04-186] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-04-186] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/identity/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: コードは変更せず、この差分の具体的なリスクを確認して. 技術的な前提: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the identity path (B04L187): Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the support-escalation can act on the first while the code-review preserves the second. Check interactions across identity, sessions, permissions.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our sessions worker (B04L188)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/identity/resolver.ts b/src/identity/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/identity/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/identity/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sessions.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sessions.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('identity.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/identity/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sessions. No schema or API changes intended. The permissions consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PermissionsCaseB04L189: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's identity rollout (B04L190)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/identity/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-4-290\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-190\n\n{\"source\":\"sessions\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-04-190-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsessions.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nidentity.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\npermissions.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L191: patch stale flag; trace retry loop","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The permissions branch (B04L192): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One identity caller (B04L193). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are identity, sessions, permissions, and the tone should fit a support-escalation.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L194: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the permissions worker (B04L195). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the identity path, but verify its interactions with sessions and permissions. The request originated in a support-escalation and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a code-review.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the identity module (B04L196): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the sessions branch (B04L197): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B04L198 mentions the permissions flow. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the identity path, but verify its interactions with sessions and permissions. The request originated in a support-escalation and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a code-review.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the identity failure (B04L199): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SessionsCaseB04L200: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L001: finish authenticated endpoint; document contract","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingWorker (B05L002): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[STOR-5103]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L004: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in transcoding (B05L005)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/media/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-5-105\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-005\n\n{\"source\":\"transcoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-005-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ntranscoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmedia.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nstorage.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the storage handoff (B05L006): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw media retries spike (B05L007): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L008: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L009: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the media path (B05L010)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/media/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-5-110\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-010\n\n{\"source\":\"transcoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-010-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ntranscoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmedia.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nstorage.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L011: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the storage path (B05L012): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L013: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This transcoding module (B05L014): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's storage rollout (B05L015): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L016: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The transcoding branch (B05L017). From the architecture-note: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L018: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the media path (B05L019): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the transcoding worker (B05L020)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/media/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-5-120\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-020\n\n{\"source\":\"transcoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-020-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ntranscoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmedia.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nstorage.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the storage module (B05L021)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter media-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/media\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-021] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-05-021] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-05-021] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-05-021] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-021] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-05-021] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-05-021] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-05-021] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/media/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L022: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B05L023 mentions the transcoding flow. From the architecture-note: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the storage failure (B05L024): The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the architecture-note can act on the first while the slack-thread preserves the second. Check interactions across media, transcoding, storage.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/media/b05l025.go: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/transcoding/b05l026.ts: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageWorker (B05L027). From the architecture-note: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L028: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the transcoding worker (B05L029): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in storage (B05L030). This raises an awkward scope question. The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the media handoff (B05L031). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the media path, but verify its interactions with transcoding and storage. The request originated in a architecture-note and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a slack-thread.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw transcoding retries spike (B05L032). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the media path, but verify its interactions with transcoding and storage. The request originated in a architecture-note and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a slack-thread.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the storage flow (B05L033). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the media guard (B05L034)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make media reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads transcoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a storage event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the transcoding path (B05L035). From the architecture-note: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B05L036, the storage module: The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the media path (B05L037)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-037 route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-05-037 subject=u-19 scopes=media:write,transcoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  transcoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-05-037 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  storage lease_expiring request_id=req-05-037 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR media commit_failed request_id=req-05-037 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-05-037 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  media request_resumed request_id=req-05-037 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  storage lease_owner_changed request_id=req-05-037 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  media commit_ok request_id=req-05-037 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-05-037 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-05-037 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-05-037 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-05-037 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-037-replay route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: コードは変更せず、この差分の具体的なリスクを確認して. 技術的な前提: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"Our transcoding worker (B05L038)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This storage module (B05L039)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make media reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads transcoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a storage event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's media rollout (B05L040)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/media/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-5-140\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-040\n\n{\"source\":\"transcoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-040-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ntranscoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmedia.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nstorage.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A transcoding incident report (B05L041)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter media-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/media\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-041] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-05-041] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-05-041] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-05-041] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-041] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-05-041] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-05-041] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-05-041] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/media/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The storage branch (B05L042)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-042 route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-05-042 subject=u-19 scopes=media:write,transcoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  transcoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-05-042 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  storage lease_expiring request_id=req-05-042 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR media commit_failed request_id=req-05-042 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-05-042 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  media request_resumed request_id=req-05-042 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  storage lease_owner_changed request_id=req-05-042 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  media commit_ok request_id=req-05-042 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-05-042 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-05-042 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-05-042 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-05-042 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-042-replay route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L043: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the transcoding path (B05L044)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make media reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads transcoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a storage event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the storage worker (B05L045): corrige uniquement la branche fautive avec un test ciblé. Contexte technique : One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L046: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the transcoding branch (B05L047)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-047 route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-05-047 subject=u-19 scopes=media:write,transcoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  transcoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-05-047 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  storage lease_expiring request_id=req-05-047 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR media commit_failed request_id=req-05-047 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-05-047 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  media request_resumed request_id=req-05-047 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  storage lease_owner_changed request_id=req-05-047 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  media commit_ok request_id=req-05-047 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-05-047 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-05-047 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-05-047 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-05-047 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-047-replay route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B05L048 mentions the storage flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L049: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/transcoding/b05l050.go: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L051: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaWorker (B05L052): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L053: finish authenticated endpoint; assess risks","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the storage worker (B05L054)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make media reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads transcoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a storage event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in media (B05L055): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the transcoding handoff (B05L056): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L057: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the media flow (B05L058)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the transcoding guard (B05L059)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make media reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads transcoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a storage event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L060: patch stale flag; trace retry loop","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B05L061, the media module: führe die doppelten Pfade zusammen, ohne externes Verhalten zu ändern. Technischer Kontext: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the transcoding path (B05L062): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our storage worker (B05L063)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This media module (B05L064)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make media reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads transcoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a storage event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L065: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L066: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L067: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L068: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the storage path (B05L069)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make media reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads transcoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a storage event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the media worker (B05L070). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the media path, but verify its interactions with transcoding and storage. The request originated in a architecture-note and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a slack-thread.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the transcoding module (B05L071). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the storage branch (B05L072): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B05L073 mentions the media flow. From the architecture-note: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L074: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/storage/b05l075.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/media/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-5-175\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-075\n\n{\"source\":\"transcoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-075-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ntranscoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmedia.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nstorage.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/media/b05l076.ts: examine ce changement et relève les risques précis sans modifier le code. Contexte technique : This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingWorker (B05L077). This raises an awkward scope question. The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[STOR-5178]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L079: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L080: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the storage handoff (B05L081). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw media retries spike (B05L082): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the transcoding flow (B05L083)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L084: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the media path (B05L085). From the architecture-note: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B05L086, the transcoding module: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the storage path (B05L087)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-087 route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-05-087 subject=u-19 scopes=media:write,transcoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  transcoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-05-087 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  storage lease_expiring request_id=req-05-087 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR media commit_failed request_id=req-05-087 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-05-087 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  media request_resumed request_id=req-05-087 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  storage lease_owner_changed request_id=req-05-087 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  media commit_ok request_id=req-05-087 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-05-087 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-05-087 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-05-087 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-05-087 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-087-replay route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our media worker (B05L088). From the slack-thread: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This transcoding module (B05L089): Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the architecture-note can act on the first while the slack-thread preserves the second. Check interactions across media, transcoding, storage.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's storage rollout (B05L090). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the media path, but verify its interactions with transcoding and storage. The request originated in a architecture-note and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a slack-thread.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A media incident report (B05L091): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The transcoding branch (B05L092)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-092 route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-05-092 subject=u-19 scopes=media:write,transcoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  transcoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-05-092 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  storage lease_expiring request_id=req-05-092 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR media commit_failed request_id=req-05-092 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-05-092 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  media request_resumed request_id=req-05-092 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  storage lease_owner_changed request_id=req-05-092 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  media commit_ok request_id=req-05-092 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-05-092 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-05-092 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-05-092 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-05-092 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-092-replay route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: una os caminhos duplicados sem alterar o comportamento público. Contexto técnico: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"One storage caller (B05L093)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the media path (B05L094): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the transcoding worker (B05L095): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the storage module (B05L096): This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the architecture-note can act on the first while the slack-thread preserves the second. Check interactions across media, transcoding, storage.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L097: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B05L098 mentions the transcoding flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the storage failure (B05L099)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make media reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads transcoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a storage event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L100: assess risks; document contract","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/transcoding/b05l101.ts. From the architecture-note: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageWorker (B05L102). From the slack-thread: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[MEDI-5203]: The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the transcoding worker (B05L104): Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the architecture-note can act on the first while the slack-thread preserves the second. Check interactions across media, transcoding, storage.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L105: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the media handoff (B05L106)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter media-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/media\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-106] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-05-106] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-05-106] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-05-106] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-106] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-05-106] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-05-106] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-05-106] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/media/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L107: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L108: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the media guard (B05L109). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the transcoding path (B05L110)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/media/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-5-210\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-110\n\n{\"source\":\"transcoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-110-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ntranscoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmedia.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nstorage.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L111: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the media path (B05L112)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-112 route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-05-112 subject=u-19 scopes=media:write,transcoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  transcoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-05-112 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  storage lease_expiring request_id=req-05-112 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR media commit_failed request_id=req-05-112 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-05-112 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  media request_resumed request_id=req-05-112 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  storage lease_owner_changed request_id=req-05-112 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  media commit_ok request_id=req-05-112 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-05-112 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-05-112 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-05-112 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-05-112 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-112-replay route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our transcoding worker (B05L113)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: corrige solo la rama equivocada y añade una prueba enfocada. Contexto técnico: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"This storage module (B05L114): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's media rollout (B05L115). From the architecture-note: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L116: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The storage branch (B05L117): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One media caller (B05L118)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L119: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the storage worker (B05L120): corrija somente o ramo errado e acrescente um teste focado. Contexto técnico: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L121: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the transcoding branch (B05L122). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L123: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the media failure (B05L124). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/transcoding/b05l125.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/media/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-5-225\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-125\n\n{\"source\":\"transcoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-125-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ntranscoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmedia.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nstorage.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: skizziere Reihenfolge, Abhängigkeiten, Messpunkte und Rollback. Technischer Kontext: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"src/storage/b05l126.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter media-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/media\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-126] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-05-126] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-05-126] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-05-126] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-126] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-05-126] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-05-126] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-05-126] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/media/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaWorker (B05L127)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-127 route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-05-127 subject=u-19 scopes=media:write,transcoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  transcoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-05-127 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  storage lease_expiring request_id=req-05-127 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR media commit_failed request_id=req-05-127 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-05-127 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  media request_resumed request_id=req-05-127 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  storage lease_owner_changed request_id=req-05-127 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  media commit_ok request_id=req-05-127 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-05-127 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-05-127 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-05-127 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-05-127 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-127-replay route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L128: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the storage worker (B05L129)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make media reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads transcoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a storage event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L130: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the transcoding handoff (B05L131)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter media-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/media\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-131] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-05-131] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-05-131] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-05-131] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-131] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-05-131] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-05-131] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-05-131] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/media/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L132: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the media flow (B05L133)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L134: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L135: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B05L136, the media module. From the slack-thread: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the transcoding path (B05L137): This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the architecture-note can act on the first while the slack-thread preserves the second. Check interactions across media, transcoding, storage.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our storage worker (B05L138): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This media module (B05L139): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's transcoding rollout (B05L140). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the media path, but verify its interactions with transcoding and storage. The request originated in a architecture-note and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a slack-thread.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A storage incident report (B05L141)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter media-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/media\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-141] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-05-141] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-05-141] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-05-141] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-141] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-05-141] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-05-141] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-05-141] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/media/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: reordena estas rutas duplicadas sin cambiar el comportamiento público. Contexto técnico: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"The media branch (B05L142)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-142 route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-05-142 subject=u-19 scopes=media:write,transcoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  transcoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-05-142 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  storage lease_expiring request_id=req-05-142 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR media commit_failed request_id=req-05-142 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-05-142 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  media request_resumed request_id=req-05-142 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  storage lease_owner_changed request_id=req-05-142 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  media commit_ok request_id=req-05-142 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-05-142 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-05-142 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-05-142 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-05-142 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-142-replay route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L143: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L144: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the media worker (B05L145). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the transcoding module (B05L146): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the architecture-note can act on the first while the slack-thread preserves the second. Check interactions across media, transcoding, storage.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the storage branch (B05L147): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L148: Auth-Endpoint bauen","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the transcoding failure (B05L149): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L150: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L151: 记录 API 契约","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L152: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[STOR-5253]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the media worker (B05L154)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make media reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads transcoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a storage event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L155: ordene migração","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the storage handoff (B05L156). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the media path, but verify its interactions with transcoding and storage. The request originated in a architecture-note and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a slack-thread.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw media retries spike (B05L157): 移行順序、依存関係、metrics、rollback を整理して. 技術的な前提: This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the architecture-note can act on the first while the slack-thread preserves the second. Check interactions across media, transcoding, storage.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the transcoding flow (B05L158): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the storage guard (B05L159)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make media reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads transcoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a storage event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the media path (B05L160). From the slack-thread: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L161: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L162: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L163: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This transcoding module (B05L164): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's storage rollout (B05L165): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L166: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The transcoding branch (B05L167). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One storage caller (B05L168): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the media path (B05L169)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make media reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads transcoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a storage event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the transcoding worker (B05L170). Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the storage module (B05L171). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the media branch (B05L172): 合并重复路径，但保持公开行为完全不变. 技术上下文： Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B05L173 mentions the transcoding flow. This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the storage failure (B05L174): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/media/b05l175.go. This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are media, transcoding, storage, and the tone should fit a architecture-note.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/transcoding/b05l176.ts. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the media path, but verify its interactions with transcoding and storage. The request originated in a architecture-note and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a slack-thread.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageWorker (B05L177): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[MEDI-5278]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/media/resolver.ts b/src/media/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/media/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/media/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.transcoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('media.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/media/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to transcoding. No schema or API changes intended. The storage consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the transcoding worker (B05L179): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in storage (B05L180): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the architecture-note can act on the first while the slack-thread preserves the second. Check interactions across media, transcoding, storage.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the media handoff (B05L181)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter media-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/media\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-181] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-05-181] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-05-181] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-05-181] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-05-181] POST /v2/media idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-05-181] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-05-181] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-05-181] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/media/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: rédige une note mainteneur avec contrat, erreurs et exemple concret. Contexte technique : Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw transcoding retries spike (B05L182)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-182 route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-05-182 subject=u-19 scopes=media:write,transcoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  transcoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-05-182 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  storage lease_expiring request_id=req-05-182 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR media commit_failed request_id=req-05-182 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-05-182 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  media request_resumed request_id=req-05-182 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  storage lease_owner_changed request_id=req-05-182 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  media commit_ok request_id=req-05-182 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-05-182 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-05-182 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-05-182 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-05-182 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-05-182-replay route=/media/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the storage flow (B05L183). From the architecture-note: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the media guard (B05L184). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the transcoding path (B05L185): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L186: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L187: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L188: document contract; assess risks","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This storage module (B05L189). From the architecture-note: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's media rollout (B05L190): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L191: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L192: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One media caller (B05L193): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L194: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the storage worker (B05L195): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MediaCaseB05L196: termina endpoint autenticado","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"TranscodingCaseB05L197: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"StorageCaseB05L198: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the media failure (B05L199): This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the architecture-note can act on the first while the slack-thread preserves the second. Check interactions across media, transcoding, storage.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/transcoding/b05l200.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/media/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-5-300\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-200\n\n{\"source\":\"transcoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-05-200-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ntranscoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmedia.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nstorage.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/billing/b06l001.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-001] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-001] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-001] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-001] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-001] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-001] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-001] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-001] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingWorker (B06L002). Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The immediate context is the billing path, but verify its interactions with invoicing and tax. The request originated in a bug-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a release-brief.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[TAX-6103]: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the billing worker (B06L004): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L005: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the tax handoff (B06L006): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw billing retries spike (B06L007): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the bug-report can act on the first while the release-brief preserves the second. Check interactions across billing, invoicing, tax.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the invoicing flow (B06L008): prepare uma nota curta com contrato, falhas e exemplo real. Contexto técnico: invoicing module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L009: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the billing path (B06L010): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B06L011, the invoicing module: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the tax path (B06L012): The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the bug-report can act on the first while the release-brief preserves the second. Check interactions across billing, invoicing, tax.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L013: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This invoicing module (B06L014): examine ce changement et relève les risques précis sans modifier le code. Contexte technique : Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's tax rollout (B06L015)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/billing/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-6-115\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-015\n\n{\"source\":\"invoicing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-015-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninvoicing.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nbilling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntax.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: 外部挙動を変えずに重複した経路を一つにまとめて. 技術的な前提: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L016: assess risks; document contract","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The invoicing branch (B06L017). The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The immediate context is the billing path, but verify its interactions with invoicing and tax. The request originated in a bug-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a release-brief.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One tax caller (B06L018)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/billing/resolver.ts b/src/billing/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/billing/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/billing/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('billing.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to invoicing. No schema or API changes intended. The tax consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L019: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the invoicing worker (B06L020). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the tax module (B06L021)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-021] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-021] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-021] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-021] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-021] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-021] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-021] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-021] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the billing branch (B06L022): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B06L023 mentions the invoicing flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/billing/resolver.ts b/src/billing/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/billing/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/billing/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('billing.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to invoicing. No schema or API changes intended. The tax consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L024: rastrea retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"tools/billing/b06l025.go: Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/invoicing/b06l026.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-026] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-026] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-026] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-026] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-026] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-026] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-026] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-026] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L027: assess risks; trace retry loop","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L028: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the invoicing worker (B06L029). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L030: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L031: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw invoicing retries spike (B06L032)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-032 route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-06-032 subject=u-19 scopes=billing:write,invoicing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  invoicing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-06-032 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  tax lease_expiring request_id=req-06-032 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR billing commit_failed request_id=req-06-032 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-06-032 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  billing request_resumed request_id=req-06-032 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  tax lease_owner_changed request_id=req-06-032 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  billing commit_ok request_id=req-06-032 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-06-032 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-06-032 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-06-032 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-06-032 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-032-replay route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the tax flow (B06L033)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/billing/resolver.ts b/src/billing/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/billing/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/billing/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('billing.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to invoicing. No schema or API changes intended. The tax consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the billing guard (B06L034). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the invoicing path (B06L035)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/billing/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-6-135\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-035\n\n{\"source\":\"invoicing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-035-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninvoicing.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nbilling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntax.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: prepare uma nota curta com contrato, falhas e exemplo real. Contexto técnico: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L036: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the billing path (B06L037)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-037 route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-06-037 subject=u-19 scopes=billing:write,invoicing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  invoicing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-06-037 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  tax lease_expiring request_id=req-06-037 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR billing commit_failed request_id=req-06-037 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-06-037 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  billing request_resumed request_id=req-06-037 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  tax lease_owner_changed request_id=req-06-037 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  billing commit_ok request_id=req-06-037 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-06-037 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-06-037 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-06-037 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-06-037 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-037-replay route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L038: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This tax module (B06L039)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make billing reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads invoicing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a tax event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's billing rollout (B06L040): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A invoicing incident report (B06L041)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-041] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-041] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-041] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-041] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-041] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-041] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-041] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-041] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L042: patch stale flag; trace retry loop","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One billing caller (B06L043)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/billing/resolver.ts b/src/billing/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/billing/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/billing/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('billing.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to invoicing. No schema or API changes intended. The tax consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the invoicing path (B06L044)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make billing reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads invoicing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a tax event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the tax worker (B06L045)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/billing/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-6-145\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-045\n\n{\"source\":\"invoicing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-045-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninvoicing.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nbilling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntax.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L046: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the invoicing branch (B06L047)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-047 route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-06-047 subject=u-19 scopes=billing:write,invoicing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  invoicing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-06-047 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  tax lease_expiring request_id=req-06-047 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR billing commit_failed request_id=req-06-047 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-06-047 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  billing request_resumed request_id=req-06-047 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  tax lease_owner_changed request_id=req-06-047 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  billing commit_ok request_id=req-06-047 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-06-047 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-06-047 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-06-047 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-06-047 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-047-replay route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B06L048 mentions the tax flow. This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the billing failure (B06L049). From the bug-report: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/invoicing/b06l050.go. This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L051: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L052: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[INVO-6153]: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the tax worker (B06L054)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make billing reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads invoicing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a tax event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in billing (B06L055)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/billing/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-6-155\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-055\n\n{\"source\":\"invoicing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-055-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninvoicing.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nbilling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntax.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: finde die Ursache der Retry-Schleife und belege sie mit einem Test. Technischer Kontext: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the invoicing handoff (B06L056). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L057: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the billing flow (B06L058). From the release-brief: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the invoicing guard (B06L059)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make billing reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads invoicing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a tax event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L060: document contract; finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L061: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the invoicing path (B06L062): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our tax worker (B06L063). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This billing module (B06L064). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the billing path, but verify its interactions with invoicing and tax. The request originated in a bug-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a release-brief.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's invoicing rollout (B06L065). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A tax incident report (B06L066)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-066] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-066] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-066] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-066] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-066] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-066] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-066] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-066] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The billing branch (B06L067)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-067 route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-06-067 subject=u-19 scopes=billing:write,invoicing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  invoicing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-06-067 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  tax lease_expiring request_id=req-06-067 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR billing commit_failed request_id=req-06-067 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-06-067 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  billing request_resumed request_id=req-06-067 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  tax lease_owner_changed request_id=req-06-067 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  billing commit_ok request_id=req-06-067 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-06-067 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-06-067 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-06-067 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-06-067 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-067-replay route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One invoicing caller (B06L068). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L069: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the billing worker (B06L070): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the invoicing module (B06L071)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-071] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-071] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-071] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-071] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-071] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-071] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-071] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-071] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: corrige uniquement la branche fautive avec un test ciblé. Contexte technique : Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the tax branch (B06L072). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the billing path, but verify its interactions with invoicing and tax. The request originated in a bug-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a release-brief.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L073: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the invoicing failure (B06L074)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make billing reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads invoicing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a tax event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/tax/b06l075.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/billing/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-6-175\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-075\n\n{\"source\":\"invoicing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-075-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninvoicing.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nbilling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntax.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/billing/b06l076.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-076] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-076] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-076] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-076] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-076] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-076] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-076] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-076] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: skizziere Reihenfolge, Abhängigkeiten, Messpunkte und Rollback. Technischer Kontext: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingWorker (B06L077): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[TAX-6178]: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the billing worker (B06L079): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in invoicing (B06L080)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/billing/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-6-180\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-080\n\n{\"source\":\"invoicing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-080-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninvoicing.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nbilling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntax.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L081: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L082: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the invoicing flow (B06L083): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L084: merge duplicate branches; sequence migration","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the billing path (B06L085): The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the bug-report can act on the first while the release-brief preserves the second. Check interactions across billing, invoicing, tax.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B06L086, the invoicing module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-086] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-086] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-086] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-086] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-086] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-086] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-086] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-086] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the tax path (B06L087). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L088: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This invoicing module (B06L089): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's tax rollout (B06L090). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A billing incident report (B06L091): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The invoicing branch (B06L092). Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L093: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the billing path (B06L094): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L095: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the tax module (B06L096). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the billing path, but verify its interactions with invoicing and tax. The request originated in a bug-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a release-brief.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the billing branch (B06L097): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B06L098 mentions the invoicing flow: 外部挙動を変えずに重複した経路を一つにまとめて. 技術的な前提: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the tax failure (B06L099): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/billing/b06l100.go. This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/invoicing/b06l101.ts: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxWorker (B06L102)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-102 route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-06-102 subject=u-19 scopes=billing:write,invoicing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  invoicing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-06-102 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  tax lease_expiring request_id=req-06-102 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR billing commit_failed request_id=req-06-102 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-06-102 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  billing request_resumed request_id=req-06-102 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  tax lease_owner_changed request_id=req-06-102 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  billing commit_ok request_id=req-06-102 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-06-102 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-06-102 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-06-102 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-06-102 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-102-replay route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[BILL-6203]. From the bug-report: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L104: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L105: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the billing handoff (B06L106). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw invoicing retries spike (B06L107)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-107 route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-06-107 subject=u-19 scopes=billing:write,invoicing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  invoicing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-06-107 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  tax lease_expiring request_id=req-06-107 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR billing commit_failed request_id=req-06-107 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-06-107 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  billing request_resumed request_id=req-06-107 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  tax lease_owner_changed request_id=req-06-107 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  billing commit_ok request_id=req-06-107 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-06-107 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-06-107 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-06-107 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-06-107 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-107-replay route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the tax flow (B06L108): The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the bug-report can act on the first while the release-brief preserves the second. Check interactions across billing, invoicing, tax.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the billing guard (B06L109). From the bug-report: needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L110: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B06L111, the tax module: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the billing path (B06L112)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-112 route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-06-112 subject=u-19 scopes=billing:write,invoicing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  invoicing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-06-112 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  tax lease_expiring request_id=req-06-112 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR billing commit_failed request_id=req-06-112 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-06-112 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  billing request_resumed request_id=req-06-112 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  tax lease_owner_changed request_id=req-06-112 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  billing commit_ok request_id=req-06-112 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-06-112 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-06-112 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-06-112 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-06-112 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-112-replay route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our invoicing worker (B06L113). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This tax module (B06L114)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make billing reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads invoicing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a tax event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L115: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A invoicing incident report (B06L116)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-116] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-116] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-116] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-116] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-116] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-116] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-116] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-116] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L117: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One billing caller (B06L118)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/billing/resolver.ts b/src/billing/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/billing/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/billing/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('billing.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to invoicing. No schema or API changes intended. The tax consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L119: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L120: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the billing module (B06L121)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-121] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-121] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-121] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-121] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-121] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-121] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-121] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-121] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L122: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L123: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the billing failure (B06L124). From the release-brief: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/invoicing/b06l125.go: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/tax/b06l126.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-126] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-126] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-126] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-126] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-126] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-126] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-126] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-126] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L127: wire accessible UI; document contract","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[INVO-6228]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/billing/resolver.ts b/src/billing/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/billing/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/billing/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('billing.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to invoicing. No schema or API changes intended. The tax consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L129: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in billing (B06L130)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/billing/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-6-230\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-130\n\n{\"source\":\"invoicing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-130-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninvoicing.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nbilling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntax.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L131: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L132: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the billing flow (B06L133): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the invoicing guard (B06L134): 请整理一份简短维护文档，包含契约、失败场景和真实示例. 技术上下文： The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the tax path (B06L135). Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B06L136, the billing module: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L137: patch stale flag; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L138: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L139: 完成鉴权 endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's invoicing rollout (B06L140). Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L141: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L142: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One invoicing caller (B06L143). Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L144: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the billing worker (B06L145). From the bug-report: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the invoicing module (B06L146): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the tax branch (B06L147): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L148: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the invoicing failure (B06L149). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the billing path, but verify its interactions with invoicing and tax. The request originated in a bug-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a release-brief.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/tax/b06l150.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/billing/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-6-250\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-150\n\n{\"source\":\"invoicing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-150-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninvoicing.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nbilling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntax.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/billing/b06l151.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-151] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-151] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-151] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-151] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-151] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-151] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-151] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-151] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingWorker (B06L152): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L153: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the billing worker (B06L154): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the bug-report can act on the first while the release-brief preserves the second. Check interactions across billing, invoicing, tax.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in invoicing (B06L155): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the tax handoff (B06L156). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the billing path, but verify its interactions with invoicing and tax. The request originated in a bug-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a release-brief.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw billing retries spike (B06L157): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the invoicing flow (B06L158): The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the bug-report can act on the first while the release-brief preserves the second. Check interactions across billing, invoicing, tax.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the tax guard (B06L159). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the billing path (B06L160)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/billing/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-6-260\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-160\n\n{\"source\":\"invoicing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-160-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninvoicing.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nbilling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntax.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L161: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L162: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L163: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This invoicing module (B06L164)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make billing reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads invoicing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a tax event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's tax rollout (B06L165): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A billing incident report (B06L166). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the billing path, but verify its interactions with invoicing and tax. The request originated in a bug-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a release-brief.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L167: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxCaseB06L168: branche UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the billing path (B06L169). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the billing path, but verify its interactions with invoicing and tax. The request originated in a bug-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a release-brief.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the invoicing worker (B06L170): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the tax module (B06L171). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the billing path, but verify its interactions with invoicing and tax. The request originated in a bug-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a release-brief.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the billing branch (B06L172)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-172 route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-06-172 subject=u-19 scopes=billing:write,invoicing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  invoicing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-06-172 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  tax lease_expiring request_id=req-06-172 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR billing commit_failed request_id=req-06-172 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-06-172 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  billing request_resumed request_id=req-06-172 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  tax lease_owner_changed request_id=req-06-172 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  billing commit_ok request_id=req-06-172 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-06-172 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-06-172 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-06-172 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-06-172 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-172-replay route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B06L173 mentions the invoicing flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/billing/resolver.ts b/src/billing/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/billing/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/billing/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('billing.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to invoicing. No schema or API changes intended. The tax consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the tax failure (B06L174): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/billing/b06l175.go: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L176: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TaxWorker (B06L177): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[BILL-6278]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/billing/resolver.ts b/src/billing/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/billing/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/billing/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('billing.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to invoicing. No schema or API changes intended. The tax consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L179: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in tax (B06L180). From the release-brief: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the billing handoff (B06L181): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw invoicing retries spike (B06L182): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the tax flow (B06L183)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/billing/resolver.ts b/src/billing/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/billing/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/billing/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('billing.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to invoicing. No schema or API changes intended. The tax consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L184: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L185: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B06L186, the tax module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter billing-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/billing\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-186] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-06-186] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-06-186] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-06-186] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-06-186] POST /v2/billing idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-06-186] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-06-186] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-06-186] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/billing/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"BillingCaseB06L187: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L188: consolida ramas","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"This tax module (B06L189): averigua por qué se repite el intento y demuéstralo con una prueba. Contexto técnico: tax module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's billing rollout (B06L190): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A invoicing incident report (B06L191): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The tax branch (B06L192)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-192 route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-06-192 subject=u-19 scopes=billing:write,invoicing:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  invoicing snapshot_loaded request_id=req-06-192 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  tax lease_expiring request_id=req-06-192 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR billing commit_failed request_id=req-06-192 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-06-192 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  billing request_resumed request_id=req-06-192 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  tax lease_owner_changed request_id=req-06-192 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  billing commit_ok request_id=req-06-192 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-06-192 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-06-192 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-06-192 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-06-192 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-06-192-replay route=/billing/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One billing caller (B06L193): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the invoicing path (B06L194): descubra a causa do retry infinito e comprove com um teste. Contexto técnico: Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are billing, invoicing, tax, and the tone should fit a bug-report.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the tax worker (B06L195)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/billing/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-6-295\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-195\n\n{\"source\":\"invoicing\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-06-195-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ninvoicing.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nbilling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntax.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the billing module (B06L196): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"InvoicingCaseB06L197: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B06L198 mentions the tax flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/billing/resolver.ts b/src/billing/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/billing/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/billing/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.invoicing.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('billing.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/billing/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to invoicing. No schema or API changes intended. The tax consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: korrigiere nur den falschen Zweig und ergänze einen gezielten Test. Technischer Kontext: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the billing failure (B06L199)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make billing reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads invoicing from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a tax event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/invoicing/b06l200.go. From the release-brief: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L001: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingWorker (B07L002). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are search, ranking, indexing, and the tone should fit a on-call-handoff.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L003: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L004: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in ranking (B07L005)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/search/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-7-105\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-005\n\n{\"source\":\"ranking\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-005-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nranking.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nsearch.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nindexing.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L006: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L007: document contract; assess risks","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the ranking flow (B07L008)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/search/resolver.ts b/src/search/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/search/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/search/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.ranking.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.ranking.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('search.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to ranking. No schema or API changes intended. The indexing consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the indexing guard (B07L009). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the search path (B07L010): reordena estas rutas duplicadas sin cambiar el comportamiento público. Contexto técnico: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L011: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L012: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our search worker (B07L013). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This ranking module (B07L014). From the pull-request: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's indexing rollout (B07L015): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L016: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The ranking branch (B07L017). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are search, ranking, indexing, and the tone should fit a on-call-handoff.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One indexing caller (B07L018): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L019: patch stale flag; trace retry loop","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the ranking worker (B07L020). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the indexing module (B07L021). Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L022: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B07L023 mentions the ranking flow: finde die Ursache der Retry-Schleife und belege sie mit einem Test. Technischer Kontext: Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the indexing failure (B07L024). Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L025: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L026: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingWorker (B07L027): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[SEAR-7128]. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the ranking worker (B07L029)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make search reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads ranking from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a indexing event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in indexing (B07L030): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the search handoff (B07L031): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw ranking retries spike (B07L032)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-032 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-032 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-032 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-032 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-032 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-032 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-032 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-032 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-032 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-032 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-032 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-032 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-032 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-032-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the indexing flow (B07L033): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L034: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the ranking path (B07L035): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B07L036, the indexing module. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the search path (B07L037): 誤った分岐だけ直し、focused test を追加して. 技術的な前提: A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L038: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This indexing module (B07L039)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make search reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads ranking from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a indexing event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's search rollout (B07L040)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/search/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-7-140\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-040\n\n{\"source\":\"ranking\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-040-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nranking.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nsearch.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nindexing.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L041: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The indexing branch (B07L042)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-042 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-042 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-042 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-042 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-042 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-042 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-042 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-042 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-042 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-042 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-042 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-042 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-042 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-042-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One search caller (B07L043)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/search/resolver.ts b/src/search/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/search/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/search/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.ranking.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.ranking.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('search.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to ranking. No schema or API changes intended. The indexing consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L044: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the indexing worker (B07L045)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/search/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-7-145\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-045\n\n{\"source\":\"ranking\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-045-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nranking.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nsearch.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nindexing.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the search module (B07L046): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the ranking branch (B07L047)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-047 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-047 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-047 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-047 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-047 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-047 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-047 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-047 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-047 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-047 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-047 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-047 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-047 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-047-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B07L048 mentions the indexing flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/search/resolver.ts b/src/search/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/search/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/search/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.ranking.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.ranking.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('search.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to ranking. No schema or API changes intended. The indexing consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L049: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L050: merge duplicate branches; patch stale flag","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/indexing/b07l051.ts: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L052: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[RANK-7153]. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the indexing worker (B07L054)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make search reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads ranking from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a indexing event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: erstelle eine knappe Maintainer-Doku mit Vertrag, Fehlerfällen und Beispiel. Technischer Kontext: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L055: evalúa riesgos","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the ranking handoff (B07L056): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw indexing retries spike (B07L057)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-057 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-057 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-057 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-057 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-057 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-057 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-057 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-057 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-057 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-057 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-057 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-057 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-057 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-057-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the search flow (B07L058): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the ranking guard (B07L059). From the on-call-handoff: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the indexing path (B07L060). From the pull-request: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B07L061, the search module: Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the ranking path (B07L062)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-062 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-062 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-062 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-062 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-062 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-062 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-062 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-062 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-062 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-062 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-062 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-062 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-062 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-062-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our indexing worker (B07L063): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This search module (B07L064): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L065: 追踪 retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"A indexing incident report (B07L066)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter search-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/search\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-066] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-07-066] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-07-066] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-07-066] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-066] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-07-066] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-07-066] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-07-066] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/search/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The search branch (B07L067)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-067 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-067 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-067 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-067 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-067 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-067 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-067 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-067 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-067 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-067 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-067 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-067 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-067 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-067-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L068: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L069: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L070: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the ranking module (B07L071): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L072: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B07L073 mentions the search flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/search/resolver.ts b/src/search/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/search/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/search/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.ranking.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.ranking.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('search.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to ranking. No schema or API changes intended. The indexing consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: 契約、失敗例、実例を含む短い保守向けドキュメントを残して. 技術的な前提: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the ranking failure (B07L074). From the pull-request: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/indexing/b07l075.go. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/search/b07l076.ts: rédige une note mainteneur avec contrat, erreurs et exemple concret. Contexte technique : search module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"RankingWorker (B07L077)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-077 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-077 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-077 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-077 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-077 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-077 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-077 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-077 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-077 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-077 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-077 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-077 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-077 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-077-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[INDE-7178]: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the search worker (B07L079). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are search, ranking, indexing, and the tone should fit a on-call-handoff.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in ranking (B07L080): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the indexing handoff (B07L081): propose un ordre, les dépendances, les métriques et le rollback. Contexte technique : This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are search, ranking, indexing, and the tone should fit a on-call-handoff.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw search retries spike (B07L082)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-082 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-082 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-082 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-082 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-082 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-082 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-082 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-082 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-082 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-082 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-082 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-082 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-082 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-082-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L083: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the indexing guard (B07L084): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the search path (B07L085)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/search/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-7-185\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-085\n\n{\"source\":\"ranking\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-085-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nranking.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nsearch.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nindexing.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: 给出迁移顺序、依赖、观测指标和 rollback 方案. 技术上下文： Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B07L086, the ranking module. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the indexing path (B07L087): rédige une note mainteneur avec contrat, erreurs et exemple concret. Contexte technique : indexing module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Our search worker (B07L088)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/search/resolver.ts b/src/search/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/search/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/search/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.ranking.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.ranking.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('search.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to ranking. No schema or API changes intended. The indexing consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: revisa el cambio y señala riesgos concretos sin tocar el código. Contexto técnico: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L089: rastreie retry-loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L090: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L091: merge duplicate branches; patch stale flag","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The ranking branch (B07L092)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-092 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-092 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-092 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-092 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-092 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-092 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-092 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-092 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-092 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-092 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-092 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-092 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-092 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-092-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One indexing caller (B07L093): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the on-call-handoff can act on the first while the pull-request preserves the second. Check interactions across search, ranking, indexing.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L094: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L095: sequence migration; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the indexing module (B07L096): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the search branch (B07L097)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-097 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-097 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-097 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-097 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-097 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-097 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-097 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-097 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-097 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-097 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-097 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-097 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-097 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-097-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B07L098 mentions the ranking flow: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the indexing failure (B07L099)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make search reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads ranking from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a indexing event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/search/b07l100.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/search/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-7-200\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-100\n\n{\"source\":\"ranking\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-100-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nranking.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nsearch.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nindexing.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/ranking/b07l101.ts. This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are search, ranking, indexing, and the tone should fit a on-call-handoff.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingWorker (B07L102). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[SEAR-7203]. From the on-call-handoff: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the ranking worker (B07L104): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in indexing (B07L105)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/search/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-7-205\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-105\n\n{\"source\":\"ranking\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-105-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nranking.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nsearch.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nindexing.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the search handoff (B07L106)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter search-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/search\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-106] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-07-106] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-07-106] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-07-106] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-106] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-07-106] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-07-106] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-07-106] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/search/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw ranking retries spike (B07L107). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the indexing flow (B07L108): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the search guard (B07L109)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make search reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads ranking from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a indexing event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the ranking path (B07L110): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B07L111, the indexing module. This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are search, ranking, indexing, and the tone should fit a on-call-handoff.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the search path (B07L112)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-112 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-112 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-112 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-112 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-112 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-112 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-112 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-112 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-112 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-112 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-112 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-112 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-112 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-112-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our ranking worker (B07L113): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This indexing module (B07L114). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are search, ranking, indexing, and the tone should fit a on-call-handoff.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L115: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L116: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The indexing branch (B07L117)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-117 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-117 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-117 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-117 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-117 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-117 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-117 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-117 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-117 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-117 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-117 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-117 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-117 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-117-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One search caller (B07L118)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/search/resolver.ts b/src/search/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/search/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/search/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.ranking.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.ranking.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('search.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to ranking. No schema or API changes intended. The indexing consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the ranking path (B07L119): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L120: trace retry loop; assess risks","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the search module (B07L121)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter search-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/search\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-121] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-07-121] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-07-121] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-07-121] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-121] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-07-121] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-07-121] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-07-121] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/search/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: complete o endpoint com validação, auth e idempotency. Contexto técnico: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the ranking branch (B07L122)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-122 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-122 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-122 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-122 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-122 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-122 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-122 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-122 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-122 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-122 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-122 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-122 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-122 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-122-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: verbinde Loading-, Empty-, Error- und Success-State barrierefrei. Technischer Kontext: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B07L123 mentions the indexing flow. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the search failure (B07L124): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/ranking/b07l125.go. Occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/indexing/b07l126.ts. From the pull-request: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchWorker (B07L127). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[RANK-7228]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/search/resolver.ts b/src/search/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/search/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/search/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.ranking.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.ranking.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('search.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to ranking. No schema or API changes intended. The indexing consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the indexing worker (B07L129): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L130: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the ranking handoff (B07L131)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter search-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/search\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-131] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-07-131] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-07-131] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-07-131] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-131] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-07-131] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-07-131] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-07-131] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/search/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw indexing retries spike (B07L132): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the search flow (B07L133): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L134: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the indexing path (B07L135)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/search/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-7-235\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-135\n\n{\"source\":\"ranking\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-135-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nranking.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nsearch.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nindexing.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B07L136, the search module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter search-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/search\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-136] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-07-136] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-07-136] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-07-136] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-136] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-07-136] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-07-136] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-07-136] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/search/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the ranking path (B07L137). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L138: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L139: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L140: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L141: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L142: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One ranking caller (B07L143): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L144: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the search worker (B07L145)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/search/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-7-245\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-145\n\n{\"source\":\"ranking\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-145-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nranking.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nsearch.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nindexing.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the ranking module (B07L146)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter search-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/search\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-146] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-07-146] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-07-146] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-07-146] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-146] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-07-146] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-07-146] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-07-146] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/search/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the indexing branch (B07L147). Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B07L148 mentions the search flow. Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the ranking failure (B07L149)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make search reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads ranking from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a indexing event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L150: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/search/b07l151.ts: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingWorker (B07L152). From the pull-request: needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[INDE-7253]. This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are search, ranking, indexing, and the tone should fit a on-call-handoff.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L154: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in ranking (B07L155). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L156: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw search retries spike (B07L157)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-157 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-157 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-157 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-157 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-157 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-157 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-157 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-157 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-157 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-157 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-157 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-157 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-157 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-157-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L158: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the indexing guard (B07L159): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the search path (B07L160). Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L161: document contract; finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the indexing path (B07L162)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-162 route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-07-162 subject=u-19 scopes=search:write,ranking:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  ranking snapshot_loaded request_id=req-07-162 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  indexing lease_expiring request_id=req-07-162 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR search commit_failed request_id=req-07-162 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-07-162 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  search request_resumed request_id=req-07-162 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  indexing lease_owner_changed request_id=req-07-162 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  search commit_ok request_id=req-07-162 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-07-162 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-07-162 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-07-162 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-07-162 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-07-162-replay route=/search/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L163: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L164: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's indexing rollout (B07L165)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/search/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-7-265\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-165\n\n{\"source\":\"ranking\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-165-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nranking.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nsearch.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nindexing.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A search incident report (B07L166)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter search-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/search\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-166] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-07-166] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-07-166] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-07-166] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-166] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-07-166] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-07-166] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-07-166] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/search/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L167: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One indexing caller (B07L168)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/search/resolver.ts b/src/search/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/search/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/search/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.ranking.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.ranking.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('search.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to ranking. No schema or API changes intended. The indexing consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the search path (B07L169). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are search, ranking, indexing, and the tone should fit a on-call-handoff.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the ranking worker (B07L170)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/search/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-7-270\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-170\n\n{\"source\":\"ranking\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-170-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nranking.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nsearch.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nindexing.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L171: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L172: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B07L173 mentions the ranking flow: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the indexing failure (B07L174). Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/search/b07l175.go: The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the on-call-handoff can act on the first while the pull-request preserves the second. Check interactions across search, ranking, indexing.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L176: ordene migração","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L177: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SearchCaseB07L178: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the ranking worker (B07L179). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in indexing (B07L180)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/search/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-7-280\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-180\n\n{\"source\":\"ranking\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-180-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nranking.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nsearch.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nindexing.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the search handoff (B07L181)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter search-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/search\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-181] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-07-181] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-07-181] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-07-181] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-07-181] POST /v2/search idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-07-181] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-07-181] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-07-181] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/search/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw ranking retries spike (B07L182). This raises an awkward scope question. The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are search, ranking, indexing, and the tone should fit a on-call-handoff.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the indexing flow (B07L183)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/search/resolver.ts b/src/search/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/search/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/search/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.ranking.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.ranking.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('search.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/search/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to ranking. No schema or API changes intended. The indexing consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the search guard (B07L184): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the ranking path (B07L185). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B07L186, the indexing module. This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are search, ranking, indexing, and the tone should fit a on-call-handoff.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the search path (B07L187): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L188: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L189: trace retry loop; patch stale flag","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's search rollout (B07L190). Uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A ranking incident report (B07L191): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"IndexingCaseB07L192: merge duplicate branches; sequence migration","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One search caller (B07L193): The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the on-call-handoff can act on the first while the pull-request preserves the second. Check interactions across search, ranking, indexing.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the ranking path (B07L194). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are search, ranking, indexing, and the tone should fit a on-call-handoff.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the indexing worker (B07L195)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/search/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-7-295\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-195\n\n{\"source\":\"ranking\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-07-195-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nranking.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nsearch.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nindexing.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the search module (B07L196): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L197: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B07L198 mentions the indexing flow. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the search path, but verify its interactions with ranking and indexing. The request originated in a on-call-handoff and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pull-request.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the search failure (B07L199): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RankingCaseB07L200: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/messaging/b08l001.ts: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceWorker (B08L002). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L003: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L004: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L005: assess risks; document contract","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the notifications handoff (B08L006)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter messaging-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/messaging\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-006] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-08-006] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-08-006] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-08-006] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-006] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-08-006] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-08-006] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-08-006] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/messaging/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw messaging retries spike (B08L007): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the presence flow (B08L008)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/messaging/resolver.ts b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.presence.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.presence.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('messaging.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to presence. No schema or API changes intended. The notifications consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the notifications guard (B08L009)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make messaging reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads presence from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a notifications event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the messaging path (B08L010)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-110\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-010\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-010-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: vervollständige den Endpoint mit Validierung, Auth und Idempotency. Technischer Kontext: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B08L011, the presence module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter messaging-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/messaging\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-011] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-08-011] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-08-011] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-08-011] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-011] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-08-011] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-08-011] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-08-011] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/messaging/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L012: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our messaging worker (B08L013)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/messaging/resolver.ts b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.presence.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.presence.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('messaging.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to presence. No schema or API changes intended. The notifications consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L014: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L015: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L016: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The presence branch (B08L017). From the customer-ticket: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One notifications caller (B08L018). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are messaging, presence, notifications, and the tone should fit a customer-ticket.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the messaging path (B08L019)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make messaging reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads presence from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a notifications event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: regroupe les chemins dupliqués sans changer le comportement public. Contexte technique : Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the presence worker (B08L020)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-120\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-020\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-020-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L021: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the messaging branch (B08L022): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B08L023 mentions the presence flow: corrige solo la rama equivocada y añade una prueba enfocada. Contexto técnico: presence module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the notifications failure (B08L024): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/messaging/b08l025.go. From the customer-ticket: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/presence/b08l026.ts: Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsWorker (B08L027)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-027 route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-08-027 subject=u-19 scopes=messaging:write,presence:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  presence snapshot_loaded request_id=req-08-027 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  notifications lease_expiring request_id=req-08-027 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR messaging commit_failed request_id=req-08-027 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-08-027 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  messaging request_resumed request_id=req-08-027 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  notifications lease_owner_changed request_id=req-08-027 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  messaging commit_ok request_id=req-08-027 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-08-027 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-08-027 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-08-027 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-08-027 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-027-replay route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[MESS-8128]: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the presence worker (B08L029). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are messaging, presence, notifications, and the tone should fit a customer-ticket.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in notifications (B08L030)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-130\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-030\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-030-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L031: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L032: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the notifications flow (B08L033). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the messaging guard (B08L034): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the presence path (B08L035)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-135\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-035\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-035-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B08L036, the notifications module: 接好 loading、empty、error 和 success 状态，并保证无障碍体验. 技术上下文： The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the messaging path (B08L037). Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our presence worker (B08L038)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/messaging/resolver.ts b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.presence.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.presence.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('messaging.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to presence. No schema or API changes intended. The notifications consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: revisa el cambio y señala riesgos concretos sin tocar el código. Contexto técnico: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L039: patch stale flag; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L040: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A presence incident report (B08L041): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The notifications branch (B08L042). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One messaging caller (B08L043). Occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the presence path (B08L044)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make messaging reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads presence from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a notifications event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L045: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L046: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the presence branch (B08L047): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B08L048 mentions the notifications flow: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L049: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/presence/b08l050.go. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/notifications/b08l051.ts: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingWorker (B08L052)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-052 route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-08-052 subject=u-19 scopes=messaging:write,presence:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  presence snapshot_loaded request_id=req-08-052 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  notifications lease_expiring request_id=req-08-052 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR messaging commit_failed request_id=req-08-052 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-08-052 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  messaging request_resumed request_id=req-08-052 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  notifications lease_owner_changed request_id=req-08-052 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  messaging commit_ok request_id=req-08-052 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-08-052 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-08-052 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-08-052 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-08-052 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-052-replay route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[PRES-8153]: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the notifications worker (B08L054): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in messaging (B08L055): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the presence handoff (B08L056): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L057: wire accessible UI; assess risks","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the messaging flow (B08L058): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the presence guard (B08L059): Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the customer-ticket can act on the first while the engineering-note preserves the second. Check interactions across messaging, presence, notifications.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L060: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L061: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the presence path (B08L062): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our notifications worker (B08L063): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L064: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L065: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A notifications incident report (B08L066). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are messaging, presence, notifications, and the tone should fit a customer-ticket.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L067: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One presence caller (B08L068)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/messaging/resolver.ts b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.presence.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.presence.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('messaging.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to presence. No schema or API changes intended. The notifications consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the notifications path (B08L069): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the messaging worker (B08L070): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the presence module (B08L071)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter messaging-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/messaging\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-071] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-08-071] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-08-071] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-08-071] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-071] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-08-071] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-08-071] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-08-071] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/messaging/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the notifications branch (B08L072). From the engineering-note: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L073: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the presence failure (B08L074)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make messaging reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads presence from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a notifications event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L075: retry loop を追跡","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L076: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceWorker (B08L077)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-077 route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-08-077 subject=u-19 scopes=messaging:write,presence:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  presence snapshot_loaded request_id=req-08-077 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  notifications lease_expiring request_id=req-08-077 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR messaging commit_failed request_id=req-08-077 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-08-077 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  messaging request_resumed request_id=req-08-077 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  notifications lease_owner_changed request_id=req-08-077 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  messaging commit_ok request_id=req-08-077 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-08-077 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-08-077 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-08-077 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-08-077 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-077-replay route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[NOTI-8178]. From the engineering-note: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L079: document contract; assess risks","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in presence (B08L080): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L081: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw messaging retries spike (B08L082): corrija somente o ramo errado e acrescente um teste focado. Contexto técnico: messaging module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the presence flow (B08L083)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/messaging/resolver.ts b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.presence.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.presence.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('messaging.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to presence. No schema or API changes intended. The notifications consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the notifications guard (B08L084)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make messaging reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads presence from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a notifications event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the messaging path (B08L085): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L086: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L087: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L088: sequence migration; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L089: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L090: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L091: document contract; finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The presence branch (B08L092)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-092 route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-08-092 subject=u-19 scopes=messaging:write,presence:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  presence snapshot_loaded request_id=req-08-092 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  notifications lease_expiring request_id=req-08-092 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR messaging commit_failed request_id=req-08-092 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-08-092 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  messaging request_resumed request_id=req-08-092 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  notifications lease_owner_changed request_id=req-08-092 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  messaging commit_ok request_id=req-08-092 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-08-092 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-08-092 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-08-092 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-08-092 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-092-replay route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L093: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the messaging path (B08L094)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make messaging reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads presence from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a notifications event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the presence worker (B08L095): The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the customer-ticket can act on the first while the engineering-note preserves the second. Check interactions across messaging, presence, notifications.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the notifications module (B08L096)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter messaging-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/messaging\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-096] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-08-096] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-08-096] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-08-096] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-096] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-08-096] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-08-096] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-08-096] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/messaging/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the messaging branch (B08L097)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-097 route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-08-097 subject=u-19 scopes=messaging:write,presence:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  presence snapshot_loaded request_id=req-08-097 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  notifications lease_expiring request_id=req-08-097 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR messaging commit_failed request_id=req-08-097 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-08-097 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  messaging request_resumed request_id=req-08-097 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  notifications lease_owner_changed request_id=req-08-097 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  messaging commit_ok request_id=req-08-097 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-08-097 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-08-097 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-08-097 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-08-097 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-097-replay route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B08L098 mentions the presence flow. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the notifications failure (B08L099). From the customer-ticket: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/messaging/b08l100.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-200\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-100\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-100-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/presence/b08l101.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter messaging-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/messaging\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-101] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-08-101] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-08-101] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-08-101] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-101] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-08-101] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-08-101] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-08-101] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/messaging/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsWorker (B08L102): Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the customer-ticket can act on the first while the engineering-note preserves the second. Check interactions across messaging, presence, notifications.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L103: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the presence worker (B08L104): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L105: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the messaging handoff (B08L106). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are messaging, presence, notifications, and the tone should fit a customer-ticket.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw presence retries spike (B08L107): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the notifications flow (B08L108)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/messaging/resolver.ts b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.presence.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.presence.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('messaging.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to presence. No schema or API changes intended. The notifications consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L109: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the presence path (B08L110)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-210\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-110\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-110-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B08L111, the notifications module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter messaging-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/messaging\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-111] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-08-111] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-08-111] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-08-111] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-111] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-08-111] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-08-111] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-08-111] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/messaging/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the messaging path (B08L112)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-112 route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-08-112 subject=u-19 scopes=messaging:write,presence:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  presence snapshot_loaded request_id=req-08-112 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  notifications lease_expiring request_id=req-08-112 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR messaging commit_failed request_id=req-08-112 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-08-112 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  messaging request_resumed request_id=req-08-112 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  notifications lease_owner_changed request_id=req-08-112 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  messaging commit_ok request_id=req-08-112 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-08-112 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-08-112 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-08-112 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-08-112 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-112-replay route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our presence worker (B08L113): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This notifications module (B08L114)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make messaging reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads presence from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a notifications event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's messaging rollout (B08L115). Occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A presence incident report (B08L116). Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The notifications branch (B08L117): Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the customer-ticket can act on the first while the engineering-note preserves the second. Check interactions across messaging, presence, notifications.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One messaging caller (B08L118). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L119: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the notifications worker (B08L120)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-220\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-120\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-120-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L121: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the presence branch (B08L122). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are messaging, presence, notifications, and the tone should fit a customer-ticket.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L123: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the messaging failure (B08L124). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are messaging, presence, notifications, and the tone should fit a customer-ticket.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/presence/b08l125.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-225\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-125\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-125-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/notifications/b08l126.ts: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingWorker (B08L127)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-127 route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-08-127 subject=u-19 scopes=messaging:write,presence:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  presence snapshot_loaded request_id=req-08-127 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  notifications lease_expiring request_id=req-08-127 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR messaging commit_failed request_id=req-08-127 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-08-127 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  messaging request_resumed request_id=req-08-127 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  notifications lease_owner_changed request_id=req-08-127 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  messaging commit_ok request_id=req-08-127 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-08-127 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-08-127 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-08-127 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-08-127 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-127-replay route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[PRES-8228]: A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the customer-ticket can act on the first while the engineering-note preserves the second. Check interactions across messaging, presence, notifications.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L129: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L130: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the presence handoff (B08L131)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter messaging-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/messaging\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-131] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-08-131] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-08-131] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-08-131] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-131] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-08-131] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-08-131] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-08-131] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/messaging/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L132: wire accessible UI; document contract","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the messaging flow (B08L133). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are messaging, presence, notifications, and the tone should fit a customer-ticket.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the presence guard (B08L134)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make messaging reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads presence from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a notifications event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the notifications path (B08L135): Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the customer-ticket can act on the first while the engineering-note preserves the second. Check interactions across messaging, presence, notifications.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B08L136, the messaging module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter messaging-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/messaging\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-136] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-08-136] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-08-136] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-08-136] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-136] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-08-136] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-08-136] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-08-136] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/messaging/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L137: patch stale flag; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our notifications worker (B08L138). Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This messaging module (B08L139): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's presence rollout (B08L140). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A notifications incident report (B08L141): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The messaging branch (B08L142). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One presence caller (B08L143)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/messaging/resolver.ts b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.presence.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.presence.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('messaging.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to presence. No schema or API changes intended. The notifications consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the notifications path (B08L144): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the messaging worker (B08L145)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-245\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-145\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-145-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the presence module (B08L146): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the notifications branch (B08L147)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-147 route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-08-147 subject=u-19 scopes=messaging:write,presence:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  presence snapshot_loaded request_id=req-08-147 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  notifications lease_expiring request_id=req-08-147 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR messaging commit_failed request_id=req-08-147 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-08-147 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  messaging request_resumed request_id=req-08-147 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  notifications lease_owner_changed request_id=req-08-147 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  messaging commit_ok request_id=req-08-147 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-08-147 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-08-147 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-08-147 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-08-147 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-147-replay route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B08L148 mentions the messaging flow. Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L149: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/notifications/b08l150.go. Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L151: ordena migración","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L152: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L153: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the messaging worker (B08L154). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in presence (B08L155)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-255\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-155\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-155-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the notifications handoff (B08L156): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw messaging retries spike (B08L157): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the presence flow (B08L158). Uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L159: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the messaging path (B08L160)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-260\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-160\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-160-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L161: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the notifications path (B08L162)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-162 route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-08-162 subject=u-19 scopes=messaging:write,presence:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  presence snapshot_loaded request_id=req-08-162 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  notifications lease_expiring request_id=req-08-162 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR messaging commit_failed request_id=req-08-162 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-08-162 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  messaging request_resumed request_id=req-08-162 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  notifications lease_owner_changed request_id=req-08-162 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  messaging commit_ok request_id=req-08-162 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-08-162 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-08-162 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-08-162 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-08-162 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-162-replay route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L163: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This presence module (B08L164). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's notifications rollout (B08L165): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the customer-ticket can act on the first while the engineering-note preserves the second. Check interactions across messaging, presence, notifications.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L166: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The presence branch (B08L167): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One notifications caller (B08L168). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are messaging, presence, notifications, and the tone should fit a customer-ticket.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L169: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the presence worker (B08L170): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the notifications module (B08L171): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the messaging branch (B08L172): corrige uniquement la branche fautive avec un test ciblé. Contexte technique : A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B08L173 mentions the presence flow: Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the notifications failure (B08L174): korrigiere nur den falschen Zweig und ergänze einen gezielten Test. Technischer Kontext: notifications module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"tools/messaging/b08l175.go. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L176: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L177: sequence migration; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[MESS-8278]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/messaging/resolver.ts b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/messaging/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.presence.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.presence.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('messaging.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/messaging/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to presence. No schema or API changes intended. The notifications consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: コードは変更せず、この差分の具体的なリスクを確認して. 技術的な前提: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L179: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in notifications (B08L180)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-280\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-180\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-180-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: una os caminhos duplicados sem alterar o comportamento público. Contexto técnico: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the messaging handoff (B08L181): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw presence retries spike (B08L182): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the notifications flow (B08L183). The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the messaging guard (B08L184)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make messaging reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads presence from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a notifications event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the presence path (B08L185)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-285\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-185\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-185-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L186: regroupe branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the messaging path (B08L187)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-187 route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-08-187 subject=u-19 scopes=messaging:write,presence:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  presence snapshot_loaded request_id=req-08-187 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  notifications lease_expiring request_id=req-08-187 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR messaging commit_failed request_id=req-08-187 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-08-187 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  messaging request_resumed request_id=req-08-187 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  notifications lease_owner_changed request_id=req-08-187 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  messaging commit_ok request_id=req-08-187 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-08-187 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-08-187 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-08-187 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-08-187 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-08-187-replay route=/messaging/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PresenceCaseB08L188: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L189: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's messaging rollout (B08L190)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/messaging/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-8-290\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-190\n\n{\"source\":\"presence\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-08-190-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\npresence.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmessaging.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nnotifications.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A presence incident report (B08L191)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter messaging-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/messaging\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-191] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-08-191] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-08-191] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-08-191] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-08-191] POST /v2/messaging idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-08-191] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-08-191] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-08-191] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/messaging/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: 请整理一份简短维护文档，包含契约、失败场景和真实示例. 技术上下文： Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"The notifications branch (B08L192). The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One messaging caller (B08L193): ligue os estados loading, empty, error e success com acessibilidade. Contexto técnico: The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the presence path (B08L194): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the notifications worker (B08L195): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MessagingCaseB08L196: Zweige bündeln","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the presence branch (B08L197): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"NotificationsCaseB08L198: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the messaging failure (B08L199). The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The immediate context is the messaging path, but verify its interactions with presence and notifications. The request originated in a customer-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a engineering-note.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/presence/b08l200.go: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/maps/b09l001.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter maps-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/maps\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-001] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-09-001] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-09-001] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-09-001] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-001] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-09-001] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-09-001] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-09-001] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/maps/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingWorker (B09L002): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L003: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the maps worker (B09L004): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in geocoding (B09L005). From the standup: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the offline-sync handoff (B09L006): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the standup can act on the first while the failure-analysis preserves the second. Check interactions across maps, geocoding, offline-sync.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw maps retries spike (B09L007)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-007 route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-09-007 subject=u-19 scopes=maps:write,geocoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  geocoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-09-007 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  offline-sync lease_expiring request_id=req-09-007 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR maps commit_failed request_id=req-09-007 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-09-007 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  maps request_resumed request_id=req-09-007 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  offline-sync lease_owner_changed request_id=req-09-007 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  maps commit_ok request_id=req-09-007 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-09-007 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-09-007 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-09-007 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-09-007 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-007-replay route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: regroupe les chemins dupliqués sans changer le comportement public. Contexte technique : Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the geocoding flow (B09L008): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the offline-sync guard (B09L009)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make maps reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads geocoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a offline-sync event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the maps path (B09L010)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-110\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-010\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-010-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B09L011, the geocoding module: The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the offline-sync path (B09L012). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our maps worker (B09L013)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/maps/resolver.ts b/src/maps/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/maps/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/maps/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('maps.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to geocoding. No schema or API changes intended. The offline-sync consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This geocoding module (B09L014). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are maps, geocoding, offline-sync, and the tone should fit a standup.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's offline-sync rollout (B09L015). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L016: sequence migration; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L017: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L018: patch stale flag; trace retry loop","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the maps path (B09L019): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the geocoding worker (B09L020)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-120\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-020\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-020-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the offline-sync module (B09L021): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the maps branch (B09L022): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B09L023 mentions the geocoding flow: The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the offline-sync failure (B09L024)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make maps reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads geocoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a offline-sync event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/maps/b09l025.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-125\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-025\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-025-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L026: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L027: finish authenticated endpoint; document contract","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[MAPS-9128]. This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are maps, geocoding, offline-sync, and the tone should fit a standup.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the geocoding worker (B09L029)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make maps reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads geocoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a offline-sync event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in offline-sync (B09L030): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the maps handoff (B09L031): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw geocoding retries spike (B09L032). This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are maps, geocoding, offline-sync, and the tone should fit a standup.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the offline-sync flow (B09L033): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L034: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the geocoding path (B09L035)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-135\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-035\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-035-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B09L036, the offline-sync module. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the maps path (B09L037): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L038: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This offline-sync module (B09L039). The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L040: patch stale flag; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A geocoding incident report (B09L041): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The offline-sync branch (B09L042)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-042 route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-09-042 subject=u-19 scopes=maps:write,geocoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  geocoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-09-042 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  offline-sync lease_expiring request_id=req-09-042 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR maps commit_failed request_id=req-09-042 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-09-042 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  maps request_resumed request_id=req-09-042 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  offline-sync lease_owner_changed request_id=req-09-042 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  maps commit_ok request_id=req-09-042 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-09-042 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-09-042 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-09-042 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-09-042 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-042-replay route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: 只修正错误分支，并补一个针对性测试. 技术上下文： Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L043: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the geocoding path (B09L044). Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the offline-sync worker (B09L045)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-145\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-045\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-045-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: reordena estas rutas duplicadas sin cambiar el comportamiento público. Contexto técnico: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the maps module (B09L046)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter maps-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/maps\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-046] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-09-046] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-09-046] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-09-046] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-046] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-09-046] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-09-046] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-09-046] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/maps/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L047: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B09L048 mentions the offline-sync flow: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L049: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L050: assess risks; document contract","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/offline-sync/b09l051.ts: The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsWorker (B09L052)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-052 route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-09-052 subject=u-19 scopes=maps:write,geocoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  geocoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-09-052 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  offline-sync lease_expiring request_id=req-09-052 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR maps commit_failed request_id=req-09-052 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-09-052 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  maps request_resumed request_id=req-09-052 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  offline-sync lease_owner_changed request_id=req-09-052 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  maps commit_ok request_id=req-09-052 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-09-052 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-09-052 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-09-052 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-09-052 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-052-replay route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[GEOC-9153]: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the offline-sync worker (B09L054)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make maps reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads geocoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a offline-sync event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in maps (B09L055)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-155\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-055\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-055-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L056: una ramos","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw offline-sync retries spike (B09L057). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are maps, geocoding, offline-sync, and the tone should fit a standup.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L058: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the geocoding guard (B09L059): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L060: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B09L061, the maps module: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L062: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L063: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This maps module (B09L064): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the standup can act on the first while the failure-analysis preserves the second. Check interactions across maps, geocoding, offline-sync.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's geocoding rollout (B09L065)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-165\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-065\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-065-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A offline-sync incident report (B09L066): 契約、失敗例、実例を含む短い保守向けドキュメントを残して. 技術的な前提: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L067: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One geocoding caller (B09L068). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are maps, geocoding, offline-sync, and the tone should fit a standup.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L069: accessible UI を接続","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the maps worker (B09L070): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the geocoding module (B09L071): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the offline-sync branch (B09L072). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are maps, geocoding, offline-sync, and the tone should fit a standup.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B09L073 mentions the maps flow: needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the geocoding failure (B09L074): propose un ordre, les dépendances, les métriques et le rollback. Contexte technique : This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are maps, geocoding, offline-sync, and the tone should fit a standup.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"tools/offline-sync/b09l075.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-175\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-075\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-075-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L076: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L077: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[OFFL-9178]. From the failure-analysis: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the maps worker (B09L079)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make maps reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads geocoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a offline-sync event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in geocoding (B09L080). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are maps, geocoding, offline-sync, and the tone should fit a standup.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the offline-sync handoff (B09L081)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter maps-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/maps\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-081] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-09-081] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-09-081] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-09-081] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-081] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-09-081] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-09-081] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-09-081] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/maps/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw maps retries spike (B09L082)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-082 route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-09-082 subject=u-19 scopes=maps:write,geocoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  geocoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-09-082 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  offline-sync lease_expiring request_id=req-09-082 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR maps commit_failed request_id=req-09-082 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-09-082 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  maps request_resumed request_id=req-09-082 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  offline-sync lease_owner_changed request_id=req-09-082 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  maps commit_ok request_id=req-09-082 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-09-082 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-09-082 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-09-082 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-09-082 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-082-replay route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the geocoding flow (B09L083): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the offline-sync guard (B09L084): Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the standup can act on the first while the failure-analysis preserves the second. Check interactions across maps, geocoding, offline-sync.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the maps path (B09L085): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L086: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L087: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L088: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This geocoding module (B09L089): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's offline-sync rollout (B09L090): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the standup can act on the first while the failure-analysis preserves the second. Check interactions across maps, geocoding, offline-sync.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A maps incident report (B09L091). From the standup: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L092: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L093: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L094: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the geocoding worker (B09L095)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-195\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-095\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-095-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the offline-sync module (B09L096): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the maps branch (B09L097)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-097 route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-09-097 subject=u-19 scopes=maps:write,geocoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  geocoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-09-097 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  offline-sync lease_expiring request_id=req-09-097 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR maps commit_failed request_id=req-09-097 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-09-097 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  maps request_resumed request_id=req-09-097 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  offline-sync lease_owner_changed request_id=req-09-097 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  maps commit_ok request_id=req-09-097 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-09-097 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-09-097 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-09-097 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-09-097 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-097-replay route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B09L098 mentions the geocoding flow. Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L099: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/maps/b09l100.go: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L101: merge duplicate branches; sequence migration","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncWorker (B09L102)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-102 route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-09-102 subject=u-19 scopes=maps:write,geocoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  geocoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-09-102 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  offline-sync lease_expiring request_id=req-09-102 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR maps commit_failed request_id=req-09-102 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-09-102 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  maps request_resumed request_id=req-09-102 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  offline-sync lease_owner_changed request_id=req-09-102 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  maps commit_ok request_id=req-09-102 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-09-102 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-09-102 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-09-102 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-09-102 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-102-replay route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: desenhe sequência, dependências, métricas e rollback. Contexto técnico: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L103: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the geocoding worker (B09L104): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in offline-sync (B09L105). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L106: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L107: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the offline-sync flow (B09L108). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L109: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the geocoding path (B09L110). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L111: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L112: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our geocoding worker (B09L113). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This offline-sync module (B09L114): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the standup can act on the first while the failure-analysis preserves the second. Check interactions across maps, geocoding, offline-sync.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's maps rollout (B09L115): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L116: wire accessible UI; assess risks","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The offline-sync branch (B09L117). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One maps caller (B09L118): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L119: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the offline-sync worker (B09L120): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L121: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the geocoding branch (B09L122)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-122 route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-09-122 subject=u-19 scopes=maps:write,geocoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  geocoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-09-122 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  offline-sync lease_expiring request_id=req-09-122 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR maps commit_failed request_id=req-09-122 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-09-122 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  maps request_resumed request_id=req-09-122 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  offline-sync lease_owner_changed request_id=req-09-122 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  maps commit_ok request_id=req-09-122 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-09-122 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-09-122 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-09-122 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-09-122 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-122-replay route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L123: Zweige bündeln","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the maps failure (B09L124)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make maps reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads geocoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a offline-sync event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L125: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/offline-sync/b09l126.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter maps-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/maps\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-126] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-09-126] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-09-126] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-09-126] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-126] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-09-126] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-09-126] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-09-126] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/maps/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsWorker (B09L127): This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the standup can act on the first while the failure-analysis preserves the second. Check interactions across maps, geocoding, offline-sync.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[GEOC-9228]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/maps/resolver.ts b/src/maps/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/maps/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/maps/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('maps.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to geocoding. No schema or API changes intended. The offline-sync consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L129: documente contrat","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in maps (B09L130): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the geocoding handoff (B09L131): This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the standup can act on the first while the failure-analysis preserves the second. Check interactions across maps, geocoding, offline-sync.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw offline-sync retries spike (B09L132). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the maps flow (B09L133)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/maps/resolver.ts b/src/maps/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/maps/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/maps/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('maps.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to geocoding. No schema or API changes intended. The offline-sync consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the geocoding guard (B09L134)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make maps reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads geocoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a offline-sync event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L135: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L136: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L137: finish authenticated endpoint; document contract","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our offline-sync worker (B09L138): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This maps module (B09L139)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make maps reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads geocoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a offline-sync event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L140: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A offline-sync incident report (B09L141)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter maps-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/maps\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-141] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-09-141] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-09-141] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-09-141] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-141] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-09-141] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-09-141] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-09-141] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/maps/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The maps branch (B09L142): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One geocoding caller (B09L143). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L144: trace retry loop; patch stale flag","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the maps worker (B09L145)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-245\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-145\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-145-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the geocoding module (B09L146)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter maps-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/maps\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-146] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-09-146] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-09-146] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-09-146] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-146] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-09-146] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-09-146] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-09-146] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/maps/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L147: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B09L148 mentions the maps flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/maps/resolver.ts b/src/maps/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/maps/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/maps/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('maps.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to geocoding. No schema or API changes intended. The offline-sync consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the geocoding failure (B09L149)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make maps reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads geocoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a offline-sync event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: erstelle eine knappe Maintainer-Doku mit Vertrag, Fehlerfällen und Beispiel. Technischer Kontext: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"tools/offline-sync/b09l150.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-250\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-150\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-150-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/maps/b09l151.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter maps-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/maps\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-151] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-09-151] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-09-151] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-09-151] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-151] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-09-151] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-09-151] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-09-151] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/maps/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingWorker (B09L152): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[OFFL-9253]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/maps/resolver.ts b/src/maps/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/maps/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/maps/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('maps.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to geocoding. No schema or API changes intended. The offline-sync consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L154: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in geocoding (B09L155). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the offline-sync handoff (B09L156)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter maps-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/maps\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-156] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-09-156] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-09-156] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-09-156] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-09-156] POST /v2/maps idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-09-156] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-09-156] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-09-156] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/maps/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw maps retries spike (B09L157): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the geocoding flow (B09L158): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L159: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the maps path (B09L160): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B09L161, the geocoding module: erstelle eine knappe Maintainer-Doku mit Vertrag, Fehlerfällen und Beispiel. Technischer Kontext: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are maps, geocoding, offline-sync, and the tone should fit a standup.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the offline-sync path (B09L162). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our maps worker (B09L163)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/maps/resolver.ts b/src/maps/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/maps/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/maps/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('maps.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to geocoding. No schema or API changes intended. The offline-sync consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L164: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's offline-sync rollout (B09L165)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-265\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-165\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-165-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A maps incident report (B09L166): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L167: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One offline-sync caller (B09L168)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/maps/resolver.ts b/src/maps/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/maps/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/maps/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('maps.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to geocoding. No schema or API changes intended. The offline-sync consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the maps path (B09L169): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the geocoding worker (B09L170). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L171: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the maps branch (B09L172)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-172 route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-09-172 subject=u-19 scopes=maps:write,geocoding:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  geocoding snapshot_loaded request_id=req-09-172 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  offline-sync lease_expiring request_id=req-09-172 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR maps commit_failed request_id=req-09-172 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-09-172 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  maps request_resumed request_id=req-09-172 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  offline-sync lease_owner_changed request_id=req-09-172 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  maps commit_ok request_id=req-09-172 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-09-172 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-09-172 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-09-172 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-09-172 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-09-172-replay route=/maps/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: 请整理一份简短维护文档，包含契约、失败场景和真实示例. 技术上下文： Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B09L173 mentions the geocoding flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/maps/resolver.ts b/src/maps/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/maps/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/maps/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('maps.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to geocoding. No schema or API changes intended. The offline-sync consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the offline-sync failure (B09L174): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L175: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/geocoding/b09l176.ts: The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncWorker (B09L177): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[MAPS-9278]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/maps/resolver.ts b/src/maps/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/maps/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/maps/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('maps.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to geocoding. No schema or API changes intended. The offline-sync consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the geocoding worker (B09L179): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in offline-sync (B09L180)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/maps/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-9-280\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-180\n\n{\"source\":\"geocoding\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-09-180-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngeocoding.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nmaps.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\noffline-sync.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the maps handoff (B09L181): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw geocoding retries spike (B09L182). From the failure-analysis: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L183: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the maps guard (B09L184)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make maps reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads geocoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a offline-sync event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the geocoding path (B09L185): propón una secuencia con dependencias, métricas y rollback. Contexto técnico: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"OfflineSyncCaseB09L186: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the maps path (B09L187): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our geocoding worker (B09L188). Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This offline-sync module (B09L189)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make maps reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads geocoding from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a offline-sync event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L190: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A geocoding incident report (B09L191): avalie a mudança e aponte riscos concretos sem editar o código. Contexto técnico: Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"The offline-sync branch (B09L192): corrige solo la rama equivocada y añade una prueba enfocada. Contexto técnico: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"One maps caller (B09L193): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the geocoding path (B09L194). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the maps path, but verify its interactions with geocoding and offline-sync. The request originated in a standup and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a failure-analysis.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the offline-sync worker (B09L195): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"MapsCaseB09L196: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L197: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B09L198 mentions the offline-sync flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/maps/resolver.ts b/src/maps/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/maps/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/maps/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.geocoding.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('maps.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/maps/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to geocoding. No schema or API changes intended. The offline-sync consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the maps failure (B09L199). From the standup: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GeocodingCaseB09L200: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/analytics/b10l001.ts. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L002: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L003: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the analytics worker (B10L004)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make analytics reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads experiments from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a consent event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L005: finish authenticated endpoint; document contract","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L006: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L007: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the experiments flow (B10L008)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/analytics/resolver.ts b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.experiments.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.experiments.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('analytics.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to experiments. No schema or API changes intended. The consent consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: 请检查这次改动的具体风险，不要修改代码. 技术上下文： Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the consent guard (B10L009): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the analytics path (B10L010). Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B10L011, the experiments module. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the consent path (B10L012): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our analytics worker (B10L013). Uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L014: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's consent rollout (B10L015): This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the roadmap-brief can act on the first while the pairing-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across analytics, experiments, consent.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A analytics incident report (B10L016): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The experiments branch (B10L017). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One consent caller (B10L018): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the analytics path (B10L019). The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the experiments worker (B10L020). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are analytics, experiments, consent, and the tone should fit a roadmap-brief.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the consent module (B10L021)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter analytics-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/analytics\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-021] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-10-021] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-10-021] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-10-021] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-021] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-10-021] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-10-021] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-10-021] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/analytics/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the analytics branch (B10L022): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B10L023 mentions the experiments flow. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the consent failure (B10L024). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/analytics/b10l025.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-125\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-025\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-025-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/experiments/b10l026.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter analytics-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/analytics\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-026] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-10-026] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-10-026] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-10-026] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-026] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-10-026] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-10-026] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-10-026] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/analytics/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentWorker (B10L027): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L028: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the experiments worker (B10L029). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are analytics, experiments, consent, and the tone should fit a roadmap-brief.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in consent (B10L030): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the analytics handoff (B10L031): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw experiments retries spike (B10L032). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are analytics, experiments, consent, and the tone should fit a roadmap-brief.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the consent flow (B10L033). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the analytics guard (B10L034): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the experiments path (B10L035). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are analytics, experiments, consent, and the tone should fit a roadmap-brief.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B10L036, the consent module: The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L037: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L038: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This consent module (B10L039). From the roadmap-brief: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's analytics rollout (B10L040): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L041: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The consent branch (B10L042): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L043: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the experiments path (B10L044). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are analytics, experiments, consent, and the tone should fit a roadmap-brief.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the consent worker (B10L045)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-145\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-045\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-045-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the analytics module (B10L046)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter analytics-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/analytics\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-046] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-10-046] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-10-046] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-10-046] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-046] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-10-046] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-10-046] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-10-046] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/analytics/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the experiments branch (B10L047)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-047 route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-10-047 subject=u-19 scopes=analytics:write,experiments:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  experiments snapshot_loaded request_id=req-10-047 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  consent lease_expiring request_id=req-10-047 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR analytics commit_failed request_id=req-10-047 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-10-047 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  analytics request_resumed request_id=req-10-047 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  consent lease_owner_changed request_id=req-10-047 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  analytics commit_ok request_id=req-10-047 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-10-047 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-10-047 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-10-047 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-10-047 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-047-replay route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L048: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the analytics failure (B10L049)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make analytics reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads experiments from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a consent event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/experiments/b10l050.go: needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L051: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsWorker (B10L052): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L053: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the consent worker (B10L054)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make analytics reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads experiments from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a consent event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in analytics (B10L055)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-155\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-055\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-055-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the experiments handoff (B10L056): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw consent retries spike (B10L057): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the analytics flow (B10L058): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L059: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the consent path (B10L060)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-160\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-060\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-060-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B10L061, the analytics module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter analytics-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/analytics\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-061] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-10-061] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-10-061] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-10-061] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-061] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-10-061] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-10-061] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-10-061] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/analytics/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the experiments path (B10L062)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-062 route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-10-062 subject=u-19 scopes=analytics:write,experiments:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  experiments snapshot_loaded request_id=req-10-062 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  consent lease_expiring request_id=req-10-062 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR analytics commit_failed request_id=req-10-062 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-10-062 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  analytics request_resumed request_id=req-10-062 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  consent lease_owner_changed request_id=req-10-062 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  analytics commit_ok request_id=req-10-062 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-10-062 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-10-062 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-10-062 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-10-062 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-062-replay route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L063: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This analytics module (B10L064)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make analytics reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads experiments from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a consent event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L065: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L066: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The analytics branch (B10L067)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-067 route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-10-067 subject=u-19 scopes=analytics:write,experiments:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  experiments snapshot_loaded request_id=req-10-067 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  consent lease_expiring request_id=req-10-067 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR analytics commit_failed request_id=req-10-067 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-10-067 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  analytics request_resumed request_id=req-10-067 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  consent lease_owner_changed request_id=req-10-067 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  analytics commit_ok request_id=req-10-067 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-10-067 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-10-067 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-10-067 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-10-067 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-067-replay route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: propose un ordre, les dépendances, les métriques et le rollback. Contexte technique : Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L068: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the consent path (B10L069): conecta los estados de carga, vacío, error y éxito con accesibilidad. Contexto técnico: consent module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L070: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the experiments module (B10L071)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter analytics-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/analytics\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-071] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-10-071] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-10-071] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-10-071] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-071] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-10-071] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-10-071] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-10-071] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/analytics/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L072: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B10L073 mentions the analytics flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/analytics/resolver.ts b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.experiments.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.experiments.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('analytics.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to experiments. No schema or API changes intended. The consent consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the experiments failure (B10L074): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/consent/b10l075.go. Occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L076: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsWorker (B10L077). This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are analytics, experiments, consent, and the tone should fit a roadmap-brief.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L078: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L079: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L080: documente contrato","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L081: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw analytics retries spike (B10L082). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the experiments flow (B10L083). Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L084: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the analytics path (B10L085)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-185\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-085\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-085-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: erstelle eine knappe Maintainer-Doku mit Vertrag, Fehlerfällen und Beispiel. Technischer Kontext: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L086: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the consent path (B10L087)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-087 route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-10-087 subject=u-19 scopes=analytics:write,experiments:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  experiments snapshot_loaded request_id=req-10-087 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  consent lease_expiring request_id=req-10-087 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR analytics commit_failed request_id=req-10-087 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-10-087 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  analytics request_resumed request_id=req-10-087 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  consent lease_owner_changed request_id=req-10-087 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  analytics commit_ok request_id=req-10-087 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-10-087 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-10-087 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-10-087 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-10-087 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-087-replay route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our analytics worker (B10L088): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This experiments module (B10L089): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's consent rollout (B10L090)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-190\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-090\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-090-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L091: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L092: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One consent caller (B10L093): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L094: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the experiments worker (B10L095)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-195\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-095\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-095-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the consent module (B10L096): corrija somente o ramo errado e acrescente um teste focado. Contexto técnico: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the analytics branch (B10L097): The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the roadmap-brief can act on the first while the pairing-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across analytics, experiments, consent.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B10L098 mentions the experiments flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/analytics/resolver.ts b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.experiments.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.experiments.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('analytics.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to experiments. No schema or API changes intended. The consent consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L099: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/analytics/b10l100.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-200\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-100\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-100-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/experiments/b10l101.ts: The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the roadmap-brief can act on the first while the pairing-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across analytics, experiments, consent.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentWorker (B10L102): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L103: finish authenticated endpoint; assess risks","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L104: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in consent (B10L105)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-205\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-105\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-105-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the analytics handoff (B10L106): verbinde Loading-, Empty-, Error- und Success-State barrierefrei. Technischer Kontext: The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are analytics, experiments, consent, and the tone should fit a roadmap-brief.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L107: documente contrat","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the consent flow (B10L108): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the analytics guard (B10L109)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make analytics reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads experiments from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a consent event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the experiments path (B10L110)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-210\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-110\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-110-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B10L111, the consent module: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the analytics path (B10L112)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-112 route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-10-112 subject=u-19 scopes=analytics:write,experiments:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  experiments snapshot_loaded request_id=req-10-112 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  consent lease_expiring request_id=req-10-112 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR analytics commit_failed request_id=req-10-112 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-10-112 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  analytics request_resumed request_id=req-10-112 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  consent lease_owner_changed request_id=req-10-112 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  analytics commit_ok request_id=req-10-112 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-10-112 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-10-112 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-10-112 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-10-112 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-112-replay route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our experiments worker (B10L113)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/analytics/resolver.ts b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.experiments.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.experiments.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('analytics.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to experiments. No schema or API changes intended. The consent consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L114: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L115: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A experiments incident report (B10L116). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L117: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L118: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the experiments path (B10L119): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the consent worker (B10L120). From the pairing-chat: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L121: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the experiments branch (B10L122)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-122 route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-10-122 subject=u-19 scopes=analytics:write,experiments:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  experiments snapshot_loaded request_id=req-10-122 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  consent lease_expiring request_id=req-10-122 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR analytics commit_failed request_id=req-10-122 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-10-122 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  analytics request_resumed request_id=req-10-122 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  consent lease_owner_changed request_id=req-10-122 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  analytics commit_ok request_id=req-10-122 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-10-122 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-10-122 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-10-122 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-10-122 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-122-replay route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L123: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L124: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/experiments/b10l125.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-225\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-125\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-125-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/consent/b10l126.ts: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the roadmap-brief can act on the first while the pairing-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across analytics, experiments, consent.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L127: consolida ramas","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"[EXPE-10228]: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the consent worker (B10L129): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in analytics (B10L130). From the pairing-chat: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L131: wire accessible UI; document contract","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L132: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L133: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L134: document contract; assess risks","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the consent path (B10L135): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B10L136, the analytics module. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L137: sequence migration; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L138: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This analytics module (B10L139)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make analytics reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads experiments from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a consent event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's experiments rollout (B10L140). From the pairing-chat: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A consent incident report (B10L141). From the roadmap-brief: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The analytics branch (B10L142): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One experiments caller (B10L143)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/analytics/resolver.ts b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.experiments.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.experiments.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('analytics.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to experiments. No schema or API changes intended. The consent consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the consent path (B10L144)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make analytics reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads experiments from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a consent event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the analytics worker (B10L145)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-245\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-145\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-145-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the experiments module (B10L146)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter analytics-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/analytics\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-146] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-10-146] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-10-146] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-10-146] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-146] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-10-146] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-10-146] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-10-146] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/analytics/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the consent branch (B10L147). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are analytics, experiments, consent, and the tone should fit a roadmap-brief.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L148: accessible UI を接続","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the experiments failure (B10L149). Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/consent/b10l150.go. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L151: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsWorker (B10L152): 查明 retry 循环的根因，并用回归测试证明. 技术上下文： Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"[CONS-10253]: prüfe die Änderung auf konkrete Risiken, ohne Dateien zu ändern. Technischer Kontext: consent module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the analytics worker (B10L154)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make analytics reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads experiments from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a consent event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ExperimentsCaseB10L155: trace retry loop; assess risks","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L156: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L157: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the experiments flow (B10L158). Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L159: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the analytics path (B10L160)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-260\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-160\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-160-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: コードは変更せず、この差分の具体的なリスクを確認して. 技術的な前提: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B10L161, the experiments module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter analytics-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/analytics\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-161] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-10-161] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-10-161] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-10-161] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-161] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-10-161] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-10-161] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-10-161] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/analytics/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the consent path (B10L162): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L163: document contract; finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This experiments module (B10L164)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make analytics reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads experiments from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a consent event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's consent rollout (B10L165): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A analytics incident report (B10L166): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The experiments branch (B10L167): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One consent caller (B10L168): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the analytics path (B10L169). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the experiments worker (B10L170). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L171: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the analytics branch (B10L172): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B10L173 mentions the experiments flow: branche les états loading, empty, error et success de façon accessible. Contexte technique : experiments module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the consent failure (B10L174)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make analytics reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads experiments from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a consent event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: corrige solo la rama equivocada y añade una prueba enfocada. Contexto técnico: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L175: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/experiments/b10l176.ts: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentWorker (B10L177). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are analytics, experiments, consent, and the tone should fit a roadmap-brief.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[ANAL-10278]. Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the experiments worker (B10L179)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make analytics reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads experiments from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a consent event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ConsentCaseB10L180: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the analytics handoff (B10L181)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter analytics-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/analytics\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-181] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-10-181] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-10-181] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-10-181] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-181] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-10-181] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-10-181] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-10-181] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/analytics/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw experiments retries spike (B10L182)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-182 route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-10-182 subject=u-19 scopes=analytics:write,experiments:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  experiments snapshot_loaded request_id=req-10-182 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  consent lease_expiring request_id=req-10-182 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR analytics commit_failed request_id=req-10-182 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-10-182 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  analytics request_resumed request_id=req-10-182 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  consent lease_owner_changed request_id=req-10-182 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  analytics commit_ok request_id=req-10-182 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-10-182 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-10-182 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-10-182 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-10-182 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-182-replay route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the consent flow (B10L183): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the analytics guard (B10L184): Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the roadmap-brief can act on the first while the pairing-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across analytics, experiments, consent.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the experiments path (B10L185): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B10L186, the consent module: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the analytics path (B10L187). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are analytics, experiments, consent, and the tone should fit a roadmap-brief.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our experiments worker (B10L188)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/analytics/resolver.ts b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.experiments.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.experiments.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('analytics.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to experiments. No schema or API changes intended. The consent consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: corrija somente o ramo errado e acrescente um teste focado. Contexto técnico: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"This consent module (B10L189). From the roadmap-brief: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's analytics rollout (B10L190): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A experiments incident report (B10L191)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter analytics-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/analytics\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-191] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-10-191] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-10-191] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-10-191] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-10-191] POST /v2/analytics idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-10-191] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-10-191] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-10-191] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/analytics/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The consent branch (B10L192)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-192 route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-10-192 subject=u-19 scopes=analytics:write,experiments:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  experiments snapshot_loaded request_id=req-10-192 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  consent lease_expiring request_id=req-10-192 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR analytics commit_failed request_id=req-10-192 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-10-192 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  analytics request_resumed request_id=req-10-192 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  consent lease_owner_changed request_id=req-10-192 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  analytics commit_ok request_id=req-10-192 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-10-192 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-10-192 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-10-192 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-10-192 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-192-replay route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One analytics caller (B10L193)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/analytics/resolver.ts b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/analytics/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.experiments.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.experiments.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('analytics.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/analytics/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to experiments. No schema or API changes intended. The consent consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the experiments path (B10L194): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the consent worker (B10L195). From the roadmap-brief: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the analytics module (B10L196). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the analytics path, but verify its interactions with experiments and consent. The request originated in a roadmap-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a pairing-chat.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the experiments branch (B10L197)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-197 route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-10-197 subject=u-19 scopes=analytics:write,experiments:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  experiments snapshot_loaded request_id=req-10-197 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  consent lease_expiring request_id=req-10-197 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR analytics commit_failed request_id=req-10-197 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-10-197 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  analytics request_resumed request_id=req-10-197 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  consent lease_owner_changed request_id=req-10-197 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  analytics commit_ok request_id=req-10-197 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-10-197 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-10-197 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-10-197 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-10-197 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-10-197-replay route=/analytics/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B10L198 mentions the consent flow: The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"AnalyticsCaseB10L199: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/experiments/b10l200.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/analytics/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-10-300\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-200\n\n{\"source\":\"experiments\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-10-200-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nexperiments.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nanalytics.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nconsent.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/scheduling/b11l001.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter scheduling-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/scheduling\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-001] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-11-001] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-11-001] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-11-001] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-001] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-11-001] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-11-001] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-11-001] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/scheduling/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsWorker (B11L002): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L003: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the scheduling worker (B11L004): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L005: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the timezones handoff (B11L006)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter scheduling-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/scheduling\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-006] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-11-006] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-11-006] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-11-006] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-006] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-11-006] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-11-006] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-11-006] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/scheduling/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw scheduling retries spike (B11L007)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-007 route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-11-007 subject=u-19 scopes=scheduling:write,calendars:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  calendars snapshot_loaded request_id=req-11-007 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  timezones lease_expiring request_id=req-11-007 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR scheduling commit_failed request_id=req-11-007 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-11-007 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  scheduling request_resumed request_id=req-11-007 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  timezones lease_owner_changed request_id=req-11-007 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  scheduling commit_ok request_id=req-11-007 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-11-007 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-11-007 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-11-007 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-11-007 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-007-replay route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the calendars flow (B11L008)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.calendars.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.calendars.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('scheduling.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to calendars. No schema or API changes intended. The timezones consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the timezones guard (B11L009)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make scheduling reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads calendars from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a timezones event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the scheduling path (B11L010)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/scheduling/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-11-110\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-010\n\n{\"source\":\"calendars\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-010-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ncalendars.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nscheduling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntimezones.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L011: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the timezones path (B11L012). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our scheduling worker (B11L013)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.calendars.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.calendars.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('scheduling.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to calendars. No schema or API changes intended. The timezones consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: 契約、失敗例、実例を含む短い保守向けドキュメントを残して. 技術的な前提: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"This calendars module (B11L014): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's timezones rollout (B11L015). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A scheduling incident report (B11L016): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The calendars branch (B11L017)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-017 route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-11-017 subject=u-19 scopes=scheduling:write,calendars:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  calendars snapshot_loaded request_id=req-11-017 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  timezones lease_expiring request_id=req-11-017 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR scheduling commit_failed request_id=req-11-017 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-11-017 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  scheduling request_resumed request_id=req-11-017 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  timezones lease_owner_changed request_id=req-11-017 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  scheduling commit_ok request_id=req-11-017 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-11-017 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-11-017 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-11-017 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-11-017 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-017-replay route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One timezones caller (B11L018): examine ce changement et relève les risques précis sans modifier le code. Contexte technique : Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the scheduling path (B11L019): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the calendars worker (B11L020): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the timezones module (B11L021): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the scheduling branch (B11L022)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-022 route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-11-022 subject=u-19 scopes=scheduling:write,calendars:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  calendars snapshot_loaded request_id=req-11-022 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  timezones lease_expiring request_id=req-11-022 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR scheduling commit_failed request_id=req-11-022 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-11-022 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  scheduling request_resumed request_id=req-11-022 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  timezones lease_owner_changed request_id=req-11-022 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  scheduling commit_ok request_id=req-11-022 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-11-022 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-11-022 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-11-022 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-11-022 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-022-replay route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L023: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L024: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/scheduling/b11l025.go. Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/calendars/b11l026.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter scheduling-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/scheduling\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-026] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-11-026] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-11-026] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-11-026] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-026] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-11-026] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-11-026] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-11-026] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/scheduling/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L027: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L028: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the calendars worker (B11L029): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L030: document contract; assess risks","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L031: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw calendars retries spike (B11L032). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L033: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the scheduling guard (B11L034). From the team-chat: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the calendars path (B11L035). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the scheduling path, but verify its interactions with calendars and timezones. The request originated in a maintenance-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a team-chat.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L036: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the scheduling path (B11L037): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our calendars worker (B11L038)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.calendars.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.calendars.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('scheduling.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to calendars. No schema or API changes intended. The timezones consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This timezones module (B11L039). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's scheduling rollout (B11L040)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/scheduling/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-11-140\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-040\n\n{\"source\":\"calendars\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-040-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ncalendars.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nscheduling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntimezones.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A calendars incident report (B11L041): führe die doppelten Pfade zusammen, ohne externes Verhalten zu ändern. Technischer Kontext: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L042: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One scheduling caller (B11L043): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the calendars path (B11L044). Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L045: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the scheduling module (B11L046): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the calendars branch (B11L047)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-047 route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-11-047 subject=u-19 scopes=scheduling:write,calendars:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  calendars snapshot_loaded request_id=req-11-047 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  timezones lease_expiring request_id=req-11-047 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR scheduling commit_failed request_id=req-11-047 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-11-047 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  scheduling request_resumed request_id=req-11-047 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  timezones lease_owner_changed request_id=req-11-047 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  scheduling commit_ok request_id=req-11-047 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-11-047 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-11-047 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-11-047 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-11-047 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-047-replay route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B11L048 mentions the timezones flow. Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the scheduling failure (B11L049). From the maintenance-ticket: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L050: document contract; finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/timezones/b11l051.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter scheduling-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/scheduling\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-051] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-11-051] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-11-051] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-11-051] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-051] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-11-051] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-11-051] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-11-051] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/scheduling/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingWorker (B11L052)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-052 route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-11-052 subject=u-19 scopes=scheduling:write,calendars:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  calendars snapshot_loaded request_id=req-11-052 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  timezones lease_expiring request_id=req-11-052 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR scheduling commit_failed request_id=req-11-052 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-11-052 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  scheduling request_resumed request_id=req-11-052 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  timezones lease_owner_changed request_id=req-11-052 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  scheduling commit_ok request_id=req-11-052 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-11-052 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-11-052 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-11-052 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-11-052 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-052-replay route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L053: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L054: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in scheduling (B11L055)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/scheduling/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-11-155\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-055\n\n{\"source\":\"calendars\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-055-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ncalendars.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nscheduling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntimezones.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the calendars handoff (B11L056)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter scheduling-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/scheduling\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-056] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-11-056] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-11-056] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-11-056] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-056] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-11-056] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-11-056] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-11-056] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/scheduling/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw timezones retries spike (B11L057): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the scheduling flow (B11L058)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.calendars.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.calendars.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('scheduling.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to calendars. No schema or API changes intended. The timezones consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: reordena estas rutas duplicadas sin cambiar el comportamiento público. Contexto técnico: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L059: trace retry loop; assess risks","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L060: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B11L061, the scheduling module. This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the calendars path (B11L062): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our timezones worker (B11L063): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This scheduling module (B11L064): Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the maintenance-ticket can act on the first while the team-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across scheduling, calendars, timezones.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's calendars rollout (B11L065). Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The immediate context is the scheduling path, but verify its interactions with calendars and timezones. The request originated in a maintenance-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a team-chat.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L066: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The scheduling branch (B11L067). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One calendars caller (B11L068). Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L069: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L070: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L071: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the timezones branch (B11L072): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L073: sequence migration; document contract","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the calendars failure (B11L074). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/timezones/b11l075.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/scheduling/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-11-175\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-075\n\n{\"source\":\"calendars\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-075-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ncalendars.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nscheduling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntimezones.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/scheduling/b11l076.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter scheduling-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/scheduling\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-076] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-11-076] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-11-076] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-11-076] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-076] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-11-076] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-11-076] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-11-076] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/scheduling/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsWorker (B11L077): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[TIME-11178]. Occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L079: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in calendars (B11L080): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L081: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw scheduling retries spike (B11L082). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L083: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the timezones guard (B11L084)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make scheduling reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads calendars from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a timezones event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the scheduling path (B11L085). Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The immediate context is the scheduling path, but verify its interactions with calendars and timezones. The request originated in a maintenance-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a team-chat.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L086: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the timezones path (B11L087). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our scheduling worker (B11L088)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.calendars.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.calendars.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('scheduling.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to calendars. No schema or API changes intended. The timezones consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This calendars module (B11L089)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make scheduling reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads calendars from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a timezones event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L090: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A scheduling incident report (B11L091). This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L092: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One timezones caller (B11L093): Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the maintenance-ticket can act on the first while the team-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across scheduling, calendars, timezones.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L094: assess risks; document contract","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L095: Risiken prüfen","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L096: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the scheduling branch (B11L097)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-097 route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-11-097 subject=u-19 scopes=scheduling:write,calendars:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  calendars snapshot_loaded request_id=req-11-097 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  timezones lease_expiring request_id=req-11-097 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR scheduling commit_failed request_id=req-11-097 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-11-097 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  scheduling request_resumed request_id=req-11-097 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  timezones lease_owner_changed request_id=req-11-097 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  scheduling commit_ok request_id=req-11-097 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-11-097 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-11-097 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-11-097 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-11-097 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-097-replay route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B11L098 mentions the calendars flow. Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the timezones failure (B11L099): The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the maintenance-ticket can act on the first while the team-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across scheduling, calendars, timezones.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/scheduling/b11l100.go. This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/calendars/b11l101.ts: The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the maintenance-ticket can act on the first while the team-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across scheduling, calendars, timezones.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L102: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[SCHE-11203]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.calendars.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.calendars.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('scheduling.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to calendars. No schema or API changes intended. The timezones consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the calendars worker (B11L104). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the scheduling path, but verify its interactions with calendars and timezones. The request originated in a maintenance-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a team-chat.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in timezones (B11L105): korrigiere nur den falschen Zweig und ergänze einen gezielten Test. Technischer Kontext: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L106: assess risks; trace retry loop","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw calendars retries spike (B11L107): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the timezones flow (B11L108): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the scheduling guard (B11L109): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the calendars path (B11L110)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/scheduling/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-11-210\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-110\n\n{\"source\":\"calendars\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-110-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ncalendars.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nscheduling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntimezones.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B11L111, the timezones module: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the scheduling path (B11L112): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our calendars worker (B11L113). Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L114: ordene migração","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's scheduling rollout (B11L115)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/scheduling/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-11-215\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-115\n\n{\"source\":\"calendars\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-115-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ncalendars.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nscheduling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntimezones.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A calendars incident report (B11L116)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter scheduling-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/scheduling\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-116] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-11-116] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-11-116] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-11-116] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-116] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-11-116] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-11-116] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-11-116] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/scheduling/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: reordena estas rutas duplicadas sin cambiar el comportamiento público. Contexto técnico: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"The timezones branch (B11L117). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One scheduling caller (B11L118)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.calendars.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.calendars.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('scheduling.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to calendars. No schema or API changes intended. The timezones consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: trouve la cause de la boucle de retry et prouve-la par un test. Contexte technique : Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the calendars path (B11L119)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make scheduling reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads calendars from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a timezones event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L120: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the scheduling module (B11L121): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the maintenance-ticket can act on the first while the team-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across scheduling, calendars, timezones.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the calendars branch (B11L122). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the scheduling path, but verify its interactions with calendars and timezones. The request originated in a maintenance-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a team-chat.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B11L123 mentions the timezones flow: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the scheduling failure (B11L124)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make scheduling reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads calendars from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a timezones event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: 查明 retry 循环的根因，并用回归测试证明. 技术上下文： Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"tools/calendars/b11l125.go. From the maintenance-ticket: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L126: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingWorker (B11L127): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[CALE-11228]. This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the timezones worker (B11L129)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make scheduling reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads calendars from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a timezones event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in scheduling (B11L130)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/scheduling/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-11-230\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-130\n\n{\"source\":\"calendars\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-130-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ncalendars.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nscheduling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntimezones.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the calendars handoff (B11L131)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter scheduling-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/scheduling\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-131] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-11-131] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-11-131] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-11-131] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-131] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-11-131] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-11-131] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-11-131] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/scheduling/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw timezones retries spike (B11L132). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L133: assess risks; document contract","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the calendars guard (B11L134): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the timezones path (B11L135): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L136: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L137: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L138: 记录 API 契约","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"This scheduling module (B11L139)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make scheduling reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads calendars from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a timezones event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: corrija somente o ramo errado e acrescente um teste focado. Contexto técnico: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L140: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A timezones incident report (B11L141). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the scheduling path, but verify its interactions with calendars and timezones. The request originated in a maintenance-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a team-chat.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The scheduling branch (B11L142)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-142 route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-11-142 subject=u-19 scopes=scheduling:write,calendars:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  calendars snapshot_loaded request_id=req-11-142 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  timezones lease_expiring request_id=req-11-142 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR scheduling commit_failed request_id=req-11-142 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-11-142 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  scheduling request_resumed request_id=req-11-142 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  timezones lease_owner_changed request_id=req-11-142 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  scheduling commit_ok request_id=req-11-142 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-11-142 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-11-142 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-11-142 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-11-142 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-142-replay route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L143: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the timezones path (B11L144)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make scheduling reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads calendars from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a timezones event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the scheduling worker (B11L145). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the scheduling path, but verify its interactions with calendars and timezones. The request originated in a maintenance-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a team-chat.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the calendars module (B11L146)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter scheduling-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/scheduling\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-146] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-11-146] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-11-146] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-11-146] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-146] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-11-146] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-11-146] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-11-146] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/scheduling/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the timezones branch (B11L147)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-147 route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-11-147 subject=u-19 scopes=scheduling:write,calendars:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  calendars snapshot_loaded request_id=req-11-147 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  timezones lease_expiring request_id=req-11-147 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR scheduling commit_failed request_id=req-11-147 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-11-147 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  scheduling request_resumed request_id=req-11-147 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  timezones lease_owner_changed request_id=req-11-147 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  scheduling commit_ok request_id=req-11-147 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-11-147 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-11-147 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-11-147 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-11-147 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-147-replay route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B11L148 mentions the scheduling flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.calendars.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.calendars.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('scheduling.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to calendars. No schema or API changes intended. The timezones consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L149: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/timezones/b11l150.go: The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/scheduling/b11l151.ts: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L152: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[TIME-11253]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/scheduling/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.calendars.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.calendars.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('scheduling.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/scheduling/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to calendars. No schema or API changes intended. The timezones consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the scheduling worker (B11L154). From the team-chat: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in calendars (B11L155)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/scheduling/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-11-255\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-155\n\n{\"source\":\"calendars\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-155-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ncalendars.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nscheduling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntimezones.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L156: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L157: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L158: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the timezones guard (B11L159)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make scheduling reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads calendars from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a timezones event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the scheduling path (B11L160)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/scheduling/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-11-260\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-160\n\n{\"source\":\"calendars\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-160-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ncalendars.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nscheduling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntimezones.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B11L161, the calendars module: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the timezones path (B11L162)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-162 route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-11-162 subject=u-19 scopes=scheduling:write,calendars:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  calendars snapshot_loaded request_id=req-11-162 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  timezones lease_expiring request_id=req-11-162 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR scheduling commit_failed request_id=req-11-162 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-11-162 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  scheduling request_resumed request_id=req-11-162 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  timezones lease_owner_changed request_id=req-11-162 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  scheduling commit_ok request_id=req-11-162 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-11-162 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-11-162 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-11-162 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-11-162 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-162-replay route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our scheduling worker (B11L163): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L164: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's timezones rollout (B11L165): deja una guía breve con contrato, fallos y un ejemplo real. Contexto técnico: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the scheduling path, but verify its interactions with calendars and timezones. The request originated in a maintenance-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a team-chat.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"A scheduling incident report (B11L166)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter scheduling-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/scheduling\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-166] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-11-166] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-11-166] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-11-166] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-11-166] POST /v2/scheduling idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-11-166] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-11-166] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-11-166] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/scheduling/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The calendars branch (B11L167): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the maintenance-ticket can act on the first while the team-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across scheduling, calendars, timezones.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One timezones caller (B11L168). Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the scheduling path (B11L169): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L170: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the timezones module (B11L171): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the scheduling branch (B11L172): The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the maintenance-ticket can act on the first while the team-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across scheduling, calendars, timezones.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B11L173 mentions the calendars flow: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the timezones failure (B11L174). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L175: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/calendars/b11l176.ts: Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesWorker (B11L177). The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The immediate context is the scheduling path, but verify its interactions with calendars and timezones. The request originated in a maintenance-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a team-chat.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[SCHE-11278]: 外部挙動を変えずに重複した経路を一つにまとめて. 技術的な前提: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L179: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L180: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the scheduling handoff (B11L181): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw calendars retries spike (B11L182)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-182 route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-11-182 subject=u-19 scopes=scheduling:write,calendars:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  calendars snapshot_loaded request_id=req-11-182 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  timezones lease_expiring request_id=req-11-182 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR scheduling commit_failed request_id=req-11-182 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-11-182 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  scheduling request_resumed request_id=req-11-182 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  timezones lease_owner_changed request_id=req-11-182 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  scheduling commit_ok request_id=req-11-182 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-11-182 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-11-182 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-11-182 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-11-182 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-11-182-replay route=/scheduling/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L183: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the scheduling guard (B11L184). From the team-chat: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the calendars path (B11L185): termine l'endpoint avec validation, auth et idempotency. Contexte technique : calendars module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"TimezonesCaseB11L186: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the scheduling path (B11L187): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L188: una ramos","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"This timezones module (B11L189). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's scheduling rollout (B11L190): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L191: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The timezones branch (B11L192): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L193: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the calendars path (B11L194)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make scheduling reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads calendars from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a timezones event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the timezones worker (B11L195)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/scheduling/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-11-295\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-195\n\n{\"source\":\"calendars\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-11-195-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ncalendars.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nscheduling.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\ntimezones.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SchedulingCaseB11L196: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the calendars branch (B11L197). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the change narrow; the question is whether the tiny restructure is necessary for the correction. The affected areas are scheduling, calendars, timezones, and the tone should fit a maintenance-ticket.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B11L198 mentions the timezones flow. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the scheduling path, but verify its interactions with calendars and timezones. The request originated in a maintenance-ticket and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a team-chat.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the scheduling failure (B11L199)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make scheduling reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads calendars from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a timezones event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"CalendarsCaseB11L200: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L001: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareWorker (B12L002). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are devices, firmware, provisioning, and the tone should fit a qa-report.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[PROV-12103]: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the devices worker (B12L004). From the api-note: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in firmware (B12L005)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/devices/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-12-105\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-005\n\n{\"source\":\"firmware\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-005-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfirmware.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndevices.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprovisioning.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the provisioning handoff (B12L006)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter devices-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/devices\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-006] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-12-006] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-12-006] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-12-006] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-006] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-12-006] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-12-006] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-12-006] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/devices/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L007: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the firmware flow (B12L008)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the provisioning guard (B12L009)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make devices reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads firmware from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a provisioning event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the devices path (B12L010)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/devices/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-12-110\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-010\n\n{\"source\":\"firmware\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-010-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfirmware.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndevices.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprovisioning.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B12L011, the firmware module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter devices-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/devices\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-011] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-12-011] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-12-011] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-12-011] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-011] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-12-011] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-12-011] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-12-011] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/devices/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: 只修正错误分支，并补一个针对性测试. 技术上下文： Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the provisioning path (B12L012)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-012 route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-12-012 subject=u-19 scopes=devices:write,firmware:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  firmware snapshot_loaded request_id=req-12-012 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  provisioning lease_expiring request_id=req-12-012 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR devices commit_failed request_id=req-12-012 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-12-012 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  devices request_resumed request_id=req-12-012 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  provisioning lease_owner_changed request_id=req-12-012 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  devices commit_ok request_id=req-12-012 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-12-012 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-12-012 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-12-012 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-12-012 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-012-replay route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our devices worker (B12L013)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This firmware module (B12L014): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's provisioning rollout (B12L015)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/devices/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-12-115\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-015\n\n{\"source\":\"firmware\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-015-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfirmware.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndevices.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprovisioning.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L016: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The firmware branch (B12L017)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-017 route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-12-017 subject=u-19 scopes=devices:write,firmware:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  firmware snapshot_loaded request_id=req-12-017 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  provisioning lease_expiring request_id=req-12-017 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR devices commit_failed request_id=req-12-017 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-12-017 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  devices request_resumed request_id=req-12-017 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  provisioning lease_owner_changed request_id=req-12-017 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  devices commit_ok request_id=req-12-017 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-12-017 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-12-017 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-12-017 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-12-017 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-017-replay route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One provisioning caller (B12L018). Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the devices path (B12L019): averigua por qué se repite el intento y demuéstralo con una prueba. Contexto técnico: devices module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the firmware worker (B12L020): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L021: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the devices branch (B12L022)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-022 route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-12-022 subject=u-19 scopes=devices:write,firmware:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  firmware snapshot_loaded request_id=req-12-022 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  provisioning lease_expiring request_id=req-12-022 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR devices commit_failed request_id=req-12-022 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-12-022 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  devices request_resumed request_id=req-12-022 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  provisioning lease_owner_changed request_id=req-12-022 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  devices commit_ok request_id=req-12-022 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-12-022 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-12-022 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-12-022 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-12-022 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-022-replay route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L023: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the provisioning failure (B12L024): コードは変更せず、この差分の具体的なリスクを確認して. 技術的な前提: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L025: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/firmware/b12l026.ts: desenhe sequência, dependências, métricas e rollback. Contexto técnico: This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningWorker (B12L027): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[DEVI-12128]. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the firmware worker (B12L029). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L030: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the devices handoff (B12L031): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw firmware retries spike (B12L032). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the provisioning flow (B12L033). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are devices, firmware, provisioning, and the tone should fit a qa-report.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the devices guard (B12L034). From the api-note: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the firmware path (B12L035): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L036: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the devices path (B12L037)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-037 route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-12-037 subject=u-19 scopes=devices:write,firmware:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  firmware snapshot_loaded request_id=req-12-037 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  provisioning lease_expiring request_id=req-12-037 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR devices commit_failed request_id=req-12-037 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-12-037 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  devices request_resumed request_id=req-12-037 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  provisioning lease_owner_changed request_id=req-12-037 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  devices commit_ok request_id=req-12-037 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-12-037 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-12-037 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-12-037 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-12-037 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-037-replay route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our firmware worker (B12L038). This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are devices, firmware, provisioning, and the tone should fit a qa-report.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L039: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's devices rollout (B12L040): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A firmware incident report (B12L041): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The provisioning branch (B12L042). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are devices, firmware, provisioning, and the tone should fit a qa-report.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One devices caller (B12L043)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the firmware path (B12L044)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make devices reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads firmware from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a provisioning event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the provisioning worker (B12L045): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L046: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L047: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B12L048 mentions the provisioning flow. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L049: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/firmware/b12l050.go: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L051: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L052: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[FIRM-12153]: The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L054: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L055: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the firmware handoff (B12L056): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw provisioning retries spike (B12L057). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are devices, firmware, provisioning, and the tone should fit a qa-report.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the devices flow (B12L058)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the firmware guard (B12L059). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are devices, firmware, provisioning, and the tone should fit a qa-report.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the provisioning path (B12L060): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B12L061, the devices module: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the qa-report can act on the first while the api-note preserves the second. Check interactions across devices, firmware, provisioning.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L062: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our provisioning worker (B12L063)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L064: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L065: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A provisioning incident report (B12L066)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter devices-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/devices\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-066] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-12-066] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-12-066] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-12-066] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-066] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-12-066] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-12-066] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-12-066] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/devices/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: korrigiere nur den falschen Zweig und ergänze einen gezielten Test. Technischer Kontext: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"The devices branch (B12L067): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One firmware caller (B12L068): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L069: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the devices worker (B12L070). From the api-note: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the firmware module (B12L071). Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L072: finish authenticated endpoint; document contract","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L073: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L074: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L075: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L076: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareWorker (B12L077)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-077 route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-12-077 subject=u-19 scopes=devices:write,firmware:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  firmware snapshot_loaded request_id=req-12-077 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  provisioning lease_expiring request_id=req-12-077 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR devices commit_failed request_id=req-12-077 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-12-077 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  devices request_resumed request_id=req-12-077 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  provisioning lease_owner_changed request_id=req-12-077 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  devices commit_ok request_id=req-12-077 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-12-077 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-12-077 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-12-077 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-12-077 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-077-replay route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[PROV-12178]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the devices worker (B12L079): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in firmware (B12L080): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the provisioning handoff (B12L081)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter devices-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/devices\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-081] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-12-081] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-12-081] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-12-081] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-081] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-12-081] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-12-081] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-12-081] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/devices/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw devices retries spike (B12L082): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the firmware flow (B12L083). Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the provisioning guard (B12L084). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are devices, firmware, provisioning, and the tone should fit a qa-report.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L085: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L086: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the provisioning path (B12L087)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-087 route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-12-087 subject=u-19 scopes=devices:write,firmware:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  firmware snapshot_loaded request_id=req-12-087 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  provisioning lease_expiring request_id=req-12-087 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR devices commit_failed request_id=req-12-087 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-12-087 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  devices request_resumed request_id=req-12-087 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  provisioning lease_owner_changed request_id=req-12-087 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  devices commit_ok request_id=req-12-087 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-12-087 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-12-087 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-12-087 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-12-087 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-087-replay route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our devices worker (B12L088): This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the qa-report can act on the first while the api-note preserves the second. Check interactions across devices, firmware, provisioning.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L089: assess risks; document contract","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's provisioning rollout (B12L090)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/devices/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-12-190\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-090\n\n{\"source\":\"firmware\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-090-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfirmware.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndevices.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprovisioning.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A devices incident report (B12L091)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter devices-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/devices\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-091] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-12-091] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-12-091] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-12-091] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-091] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-12-091] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-12-091] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-12-091] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/devices/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The firmware branch (B12L092): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One provisioning caller (B12L093). Needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the devices path (B12L094). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the firmware worker (B12L095): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the provisioning module (B12L096): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the devices branch (B12L097)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-097 route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-12-097 subject=u-19 scopes=devices:write,firmware:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  firmware snapshot_loaded request_id=req-12-097 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  provisioning lease_expiring request_id=req-12-097 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR devices commit_failed request_id=req-12-097 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-12-097 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  devices request_resumed request_id=req-12-097 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  provisioning lease_owner_changed request_id=req-12-097 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  devices commit_ok request_id=req-12-097 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-12-097 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-12-097 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-12-097 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-12-097 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-097-replay route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: deja una guía breve con contrato, fallos y un ejemplo real. Contexto técnico: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B12L098 mentions the firmware flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the provisioning failure (B12L099). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are devices, firmware, provisioning, and the tone should fit a qa-report.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/devices/b12l100.go: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the qa-report can act on the first while the api-note preserves the second. Check interactions across devices, firmware, provisioning.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L101: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L102: merge duplicate branches; patch stale flag","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[DEVI-12203]: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the firmware worker (B12L104)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make devices reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads firmware from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a provisioning event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in provisioning (B12L105)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/devices/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-12-205\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-105\n\n{\"source\":\"firmware\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-105-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfirmware.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndevices.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprovisioning.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the devices handoff (B12L106): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw firmware retries spike (B12L107). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are devices, firmware, provisioning, and the tone should fit a qa-report.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L108: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L109: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the firmware path (B12L110)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/devices/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-12-210\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-110\n\n{\"source\":\"firmware\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-110-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfirmware.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndevices.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprovisioning.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L111: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the devices path (B12L112): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our firmware worker (B12L113): Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the qa-report can act on the first while the api-note preserves the second. Check interactions across devices, firmware, provisioning.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This provisioning module (B12L114): complete o endpoint com validação, auth e idempotency. Contexto técnico: needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L115: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A firmware incident report (B12L116)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter devices-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/devices\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-116] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-12-116] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-12-116] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-12-116] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-116] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-12-116] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-12-116] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-12-116] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/devices/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The provisioning branch (B12L117). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L118: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L119: document contract; assess risks","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L120: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the devices module (B12L121). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L122: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B12L123 mentions the provisioning flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L124: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L125: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/provisioning/b12l126.ts: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L127: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[FIRM-12228]. Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the provisioning worker (B12L129): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L130: Risiken prüfen","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the firmware handoff (B12L131)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter devices-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/devices\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-131] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-12-131] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-12-131] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-12-131] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-131] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-12-131] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-12-131] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-12-131] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/devices/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw provisioning retries spike (B12L132). From the api-note: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the devices flow (B12L133). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the firmware guard (B12L134). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the provisioning path (B12L135)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/devices/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-12-235\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-135\n\n{\"source\":\"firmware\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-135-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfirmware.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndevices.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprovisioning.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B12L136, the devices module: Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the firmware path (B12L137): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our provisioning worker (B12L138)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This devices module (B12L139): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's firmware rollout (B12L140): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A provisioning incident report (B12L141)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter devices-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/devices\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-141] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-12-141] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-12-141] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-12-141] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-141] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-12-141] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-12-141] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-12-141] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/devices/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: 誤った分岐だけ直し、focused test を追加して. 技術的な前提: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"The devices branch (B12L142): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L143: patch stale flag; trace retry loop","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the provisioning path (B12L144)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make devices reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads firmware from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a provisioning event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the devices worker (B12L145)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/devices/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-12-245\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-145\n\n{\"source\":\"firmware\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-145-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfirmware.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndevices.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprovisioning.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the firmware module (B12L146)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter devices-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/devices\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-146] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-12-146] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-12-146] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-12-146] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-146] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-12-146] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-12-146] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-12-146] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/devices/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L147: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B12L148 mentions the devices flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the firmware failure (B12L149). Uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/provisioning/b12l150.go: Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/devices/b12l151.ts. This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The useful output should distinguish an assessment of the artifact from prose intended for future readers. The affected areas are devices, firmware, provisioning, and the tone should fit a qa-report.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareWorker (B12L152): branche les états loading, empty, error et success de façon accessible. Contexte technique : firmware module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L153: assess risks; trace retry loop","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the devices worker (B12L154). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in firmware (B12L155). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the provisioning handoff (B12L156). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw devices retries spike (B12L157): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the firmware flow (B12L158)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L159: 合并重复分支","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the devices path (B12L160): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L161: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L162: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our devices worker (B12L163)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This firmware module (B12L164)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make devices reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads firmware from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a provisioning event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's provisioning rollout (B12L165)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/devices/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-12-265\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-165\n\n{\"source\":\"firmware\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-165-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfirmware.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndevices.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprovisioning.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A devices incident report (B12L166): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The firmware branch (B12L167)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-167 route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-12-167 subject=u-19 scopes=devices:write,firmware:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  firmware snapshot_loaded request_id=req-12-167 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  provisioning lease_expiring request_id=req-12-167 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR devices commit_failed request_id=req-12-167 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-12-167 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  devices request_resumed request_id=req-12-167 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  provisioning lease_owner_changed request_id=req-12-167 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  devices commit_ok request_id=req-12-167 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-12-167 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-12-167 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-12-167 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-12-167 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-12-167-replay route=/devices/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One provisioning caller (B12L168). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the devices path (B12L169): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the firmware worker (B12L170)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/devices/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-12-270\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-170\n\n{\"source\":\"firmware\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-170-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfirmware.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndevices.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprovisioning.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: propose un ordre, les dépendances, les métriques et le rollback. Contexte technique : Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the provisioning module (B12L171)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter devices-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/devices\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-171] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-12-171] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-12-171] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-12-171] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-171] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-12-171] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-12-171] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-12-171] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/devices/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L172: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B12L173 mentions the firmware flow: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L174: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L175: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/firmware/b12l176.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter devices-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/devices\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-176] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-12-176] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-12-176] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-12-176] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-176] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-12-176] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-12-176] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-12-176] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/devices/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: propose un ordre, les dépendances, les métriques et le rollback. Contexte technique : Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L177: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[DEVI-12278]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/devices/resolver.ts b/src/devices/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/devices/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/devices/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.firmware.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.firmware.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('devices.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/devices/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to firmware. No schema or API changes intended. The provisioning consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the firmware worker (B12L179): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L180: wire accessible UI; assess risks","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L181: consolida ramas","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw firmware retries spike (B12L182): This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the qa-report can act on the first while the api-note preserves the second. Check interactions across devices, firmware, provisioning.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the provisioning flow (B12L183). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the devices guard (B12L184): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the qa-report can act on the first while the api-note preserves the second. Check interactions across devices, firmware, provisioning.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the firmware path (B12L185): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B12L186, the provisioning module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter devices-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/devices\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-186] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-12-186] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-12-186] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-12-186] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-12-186] POST /v2/devices idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-12-186] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-12-186] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-12-186] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/devices/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the devices path (B12L187): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our firmware worker (B12L188): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L189: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L190: document contract; finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A firmware incident report (B12L191). This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the devices path, but verify its interactions with firmware and provisioning. The request originated in a qa-report and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a api-note.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The provisioning branch (B12L192): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One devices caller (B12L193): korrigiere nur den falschen Zweig und ergänze einen gezielten Test. Technischer Kontext: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L194: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the provisioning worker (B12L195)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/devices/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-12-295\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-195\n\n{\"source\":\"firmware\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-195-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfirmware.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndevices.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprovisioning.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the devices module (B12L196): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the qa-report can act on the first while the api-note preserves the second. Check interactions across devices, firmware, provisioning.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FirmwareCaseB12L197: ligue UI; documente contrato","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"ProvisioningCaseB12L198: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DevicesCaseB12L199: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/firmware/b12l200.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/devices/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-12-300\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-200\n\n{\"source\":\"firmware\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-12-200-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfirmware.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndevices.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprovisioning.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L001: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingWorker (B13L002). From the support-thread: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L003: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L004: trace retry loop; assess risks","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in grading (B13L005): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the rosters handoff (B13L006): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw education retries spike (B13L007): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the grading flow (B13L008)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/education/resolver.ts b/src/education/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/education/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/education/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.grading.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.grading.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('education.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to grading. No schema or API changes intended. The rosters consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the rosters guard (B13L009): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the education path (B13L010)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/education/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-13-110\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-010\n\n{\"source\":\"grading\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-010-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngrading.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\neducation.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrosters.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B13L011, the grading module: erstelle eine knappe Maintainer-Doku mit Vertrag, Fehlerfällen und Beispiel. Technischer Kontext: The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the rosters path (B13L012). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our education worker (B13L013). Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This grading module (B13L014)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make education reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads grading from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rosters event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's rosters rollout (B13L015). The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A education incident report (B13L016). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L017: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One rosters caller (B13L018). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the education path (B13L019). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the grading worker (B13L020). From the support-thread: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L021: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the education branch (B13L022): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L023: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the rosters failure (B13L024): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/education/b13l025.go. From the spec-comment: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L026: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersWorker (B13L027)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-027 route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-13-027 subject=u-19 scopes=education:write,grading:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  grading snapshot_loaded request_id=req-13-027 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rosters lease_expiring request_id=req-13-027 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR education commit_failed request_id=req-13-027 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-13-027 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  education request_resumed request_id=req-13-027 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rosters lease_owner_changed request_id=req-13-027 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  education commit_ok request_id=req-13-027 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-13-027 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-13-027 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-13-027 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-13-027 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-027-replay route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[EDUC-13128]: Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the grading worker (B13L029): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in rosters (B13L030). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L031: patch stale flag; trace retry loop","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw grading retries spike (B13L032): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the rosters flow (B13L033)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/education/resolver.ts b/src/education/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/education/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/education/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.grading.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.grading.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('education.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to grading. No schema or API changes intended. The rosters consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the education guard (B13L034). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the grading path (B13L035)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/education/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-13-135\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-035\n\n{\"source\":\"grading\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-035-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngrading.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\neducation.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrosters.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L036: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L037: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our grading worker (B13L038): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L039: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's education rollout (B13L040)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/education/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-13-140\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-040\n\n{\"source\":\"grading\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-040-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngrading.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\neducation.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrosters.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A grading incident report (B13L041): 合并重复路径，但保持公开行为完全不变. 技术上下文： Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L042: ordena migración; consolida ramas","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"One education caller (B13L043). Occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the grading path (B13L044)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make education reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads grading from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rosters event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L045: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the education module (B13L046): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the grading branch (B13L047): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B13L048 mentions the rosters flow: Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the education failure (B13L049). This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/grading/b13l050.go. This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/rosters/b13l051.ts. This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L052: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[GRAD-13153]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/education/resolver.ts b/src/education/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/education/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/education/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.grading.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.grading.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('education.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to grading. No schema or API changes intended. The rosters consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the rosters worker (B13L054). From the support-thread: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in education (B13L055). From the spec-comment: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the grading handoff (B13L056)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter education-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/education\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-056] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-13-056] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-13-056] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-13-056] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-056] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-13-056] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-13-056] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-13-056] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/education/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L057: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the education flow (B13L058): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the grading guard (B13L059): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the rosters path (B13L060): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B13L061, the education module. This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the grading path (B13L062)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-062 route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-13-062 subject=u-19 scopes=education:write,grading:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  grading snapshot_loaded request_id=req-13-062 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rosters lease_expiring request_id=req-13-062 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR education commit_failed request_id=req-13-062 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-13-062 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  education request_resumed request_id=req-13-062 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rosters lease_owner_changed request_id=req-13-062 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  education commit_ok request_id=req-13-062 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-13-062 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-13-062 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-13-062 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-13-062 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-062-replay route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our rosters worker (B13L063): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L064: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L065: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A rosters incident report (B13L066)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter education-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/education\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-066] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-13-066] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-13-066] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-13-066] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-066] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-13-066] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-13-066] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-13-066] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/education/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L067: sequence migration; document contract","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L068: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the rosters path (B13L069): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the education worker (B13L070)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/education/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-13-170\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-070\n\n{\"source\":\"grading\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-070-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngrading.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\neducation.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrosters.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the grading module (B13L071). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the rosters branch (B13L072). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B13L073 mentions the education flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/education/resolver.ts b/src/education/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/education/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/education/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.grading.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.grading.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('education.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to grading. No schema or API changes intended. The rosters consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L074: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/rosters/b13l075.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/education/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-13-175\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-075\n\n{\"source\":\"grading\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-075-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngrading.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\neducation.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrosters.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/education/b13l076.ts. Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L077: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[ROST-13178]. Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the education worker (B13L079): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in grading (B13L080)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/education/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-13-180\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-080\n\n{\"source\":\"grading\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-080-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngrading.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\neducation.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrosters.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the rosters handoff (B13L081). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw education retries spike (B13L082). Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L083: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L084: ligue UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the education path (B13L085). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L086: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the rosters path (B13L087)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-087 route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-13-087 subject=u-19 scopes=education:write,grading:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  grading snapshot_loaded request_id=req-13-087 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rosters lease_expiring request_id=req-13-087 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR education commit_failed request_id=req-13-087 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-13-087 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  education request_resumed request_id=req-13-087 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rosters lease_owner_changed request_id=req-13-087 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  education commit_ok request_id=req-13-087 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-13-087 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-13-087 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-13-087 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-13-087 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-087-replay route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L088: documenta contrato","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"This grading module (B13L089): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's rosters rollout (B13L090): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A education incident report (B13L091)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter education-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/education\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-091] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-13-091] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-13-091] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-13-091] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-091] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-13-091] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-13-091] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-13-091] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/education/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: corrige uniquement la branche fautive avec un test ciblé. Contexte technique : Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"The grading branch (B13L092)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-092 route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-13-092 subject=u-19 scopes=education:write,grading:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  grading snapshot_loaded request_id=req-13-092 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rosters lease_expiring request_id=req-13-092 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR education commit_failed request_id=req-13-092 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-13-092 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  education request_resumed request_id=req-13-092 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rosters lease_owner_changed request_id=req-13-092 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  education commit_ok request_id=req-13-092 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-13-092 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-13-092 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-13-092 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-13-092 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-092-replay route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L093: finish authenticated endpoint; document contract","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the education path (B13L094): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the grading worker (B13L095). From the spec-comment: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L096: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L097: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B13L098 mentions the grading flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/education/resolver.ts b/src/education/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/education/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/education/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.grading.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.grading.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('education.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to grading. No schema or API changes intended. The rosters consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the rosters failure (B13L099)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make education reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads grading from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rosters event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: 契約、失敗例、実例を含む短い保守向けドキュメントを残して. 技術的な前提: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"tools/education/b13l100.go: regroupe les chemins dupliqués sans changer le comportement public. Contexte technique : Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"src/grading/b13l101.ts. This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersWorker (B13L102). This raises an awkward scope question. The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[EDUC-13203]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/education/resolver.ts b/src/education/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/education/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/education/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.grading.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.grading.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('education.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to grading. No schema or API changes intended. The rosters consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L104: wire accessible UI; assess risks","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L105: trace retry loop; assess risks","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L106: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L107: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the rosters flow (B13L108). From the support-thread: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L109: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the grading path (B13L110)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/education/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-13-210\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-110\n\n{\"source\":\"grading\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-110-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngrading.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\neducation.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrosters.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: 只修正错误分支，并补一个针对性测试. 技术上下文： Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B13L111, the rosters module: erstelle eine knappe Maintainer-Doku mit Vertrag, Fehlerfällen und Beispiel. Technischer Kontext: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L112: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our grading worker (B13L113): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L114: sequence migration; document contract","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's education rollout (B13L115). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L116: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The rosters branch (B13L117): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One education caller (B13L118): corrija somente o ramo errado e acrescente um teste focado. Contexto técnico: education module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L119: assess risks; document contract","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the rosters worker (B13L120). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the education module (B13L121): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L122: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B13L123 mentions the rosters flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/education/resolver.ts b/src/education/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/education/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/education/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.grading.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.grading.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('education.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to grading. No schema or API changes intended. The rosters consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the education failure (B13L124): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L125: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L126: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationWorker (B13L127)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-127 route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-13-127 subject=u-19 scopes=education:write,grading:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  grading snapshot_loaded request_id=req-13-127 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rosters lease_expiring request_id=req-13-127 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR education commit_failed request_id=req-13-127 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-13-127 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  education request_resumed request_id=req-13-127 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rosters lease_owner_changed request_id=req-13-127 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  education commit_ok request_id=req-13-127 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-13-127 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-13-127 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-13-127 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-13-127 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-127-replay route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[GRAD-13228]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/education/resolver.ts b/src/education/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/education/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/education/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.grading.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.grading.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('education.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to grading. No schema or API changes intended. The rosters consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L129: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in education (B13L130). From the support-thread: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the grading handoff (B13L131)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter education-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/education\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-131] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-13-131] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-13-131] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-13-131] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-131] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-13-131] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-13-131] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-13-131] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/education/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: revisa el cambio y señala riesgos concretos sin tocar el código. Contexto técnico: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L132: 認証付き endpoint を完成","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L133: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the grading guard (B13L134). From the support-thread: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the rosters path (B13L135): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B13L136, the education module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter education-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/education\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-136] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-13-136] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-13-136] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-13-136] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-136] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-13-136] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-13-136] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-13-136] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/education/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the grading path (B13L137): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our rosters worker (B13L138): A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the spec-comment can act on the first while the support-thread preserves the second. Check interactions across education, grading, rosters.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This education module (B13L139)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make education reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads grading from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rosters event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L140: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A rosters incident report (B13L141). From the spec-comment: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The education branch (B13L142). Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One grading caller (B13L143)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/education/resolver.ts b/src/education/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/education/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/education/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.grading.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.grading.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('education.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to grading. No schema or API changes intended. The rosters consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the rosters path (B13L144)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make education reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads grading from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rosters event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the education worker (B13L145). The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L146: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the rosters branch (B13L147)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-147 route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-13-147 subject=u-19 scopes=education:write,grading:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  grading snapshot_loaded request_id=req-13-147 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rosters lease_expiring request_id=req-13-147 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR education commit_failed request_id=req-13-147 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-13-147 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  education request_resumed request_id=req-13-147 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rosters lease_owner_changed request_id=req-13-147 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  education commit_ok request_id=req-13-147 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-13-147 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-13-147 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-13-147 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-13-147 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-147-replay route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L148: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the grading failure (B13L149)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make education reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads grading from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rosters event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/rosters/b13l150.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/education/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-13-250\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-150\n\n{\"source\":\"grading\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-150-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngrading.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\neducation.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrosters.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/education/b13l151.ts. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingWorker (B13L152)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-152 route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-13-152 subject=u-19 scopes=education:write,grading:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  grading snapshot_loaded request_id=req-13-152 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rosters lease_expiring request_id=req-13-152 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR education commit_failed request_id=req-13-152 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-13-152 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  education request_resumed request_id=req-13-152 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rosters lease_owner_changed request_id=req-13-152 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  education commit_ok request_id=req-13-152 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-13-152 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-13-152 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-13-152 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-13-152 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-152-replay route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L153: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the education worker (B13L154)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make education reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads grading from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rosters event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in grading (B13L155): verbinde Loading-, Empty-, Error- und Success-State barrierefrei. Technischer Kontext: The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the rosters handoff (B13L156)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter education-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/education\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-156] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-13-156] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-13-156] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-13-156] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-156] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-13-156] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-13-156] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-13-156] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/education/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L157: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L158: patch stale flag; trace retry loop","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the rosters guard (B13L159)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make education reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads grading from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rosters event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the education path (B13L160): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B13L161, the grading module. This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Treat the API contract as documentation unless executable server behavior is explicitly requested. The affected areas are education, grading, rosters, and the tone should fit a spec-comment.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L162: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L163: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This grading module (B13L164). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's rosters rollout (B13L165)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/education/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-13-265\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-165\n\n{\"source\":\"grading\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-165-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngrading.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\neducation.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrosters.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A education incident report (B13L166)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter education-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/education\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-166] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-13-166] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-13-166] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-13-166] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-166] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-13-166] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-13-166] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-13-166] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/education/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The grading branch (B13L167)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-167 route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-13-167 subject=u-19 scopes=education:write,grading:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  grading snapshot_loaded request_id=req-13-167 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rosters lease_expiring request_id=req-13-167 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR education commit_failed request_id=req-13-167 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-13-167 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  education request_resumed request_id=req-13-167 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rosters lease_owner_changed request_id=req-13-167 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  education commit_ok request_id=req-13-167 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-13-167 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-13-167 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-13-167 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-13-167 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-167-replay route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One rosters caller (B13L168)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/education/resolver.ts b/src/education/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/education/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/education/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.grading.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.grading.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('education.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to grading. No schema or API changes intended. The rosters consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: ligue os estados loading, empty, error e success com acessibilidade. Contexto técnico: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the education path (B13L169)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make education reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads grading from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rosters event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the grading worker (B13L170). From the support-thread: occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L171: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the education branch (B13L172)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-172 route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-13-172 subject=u-19 scopes=education:write,grading:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  grading snapshot_loaded request_id=req-13-172 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rosters lease_expiring request_id=req-13-172 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR education commit_failed request_id=req-13-172 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-13-172 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  education request_resumed request_id=req-13-172 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rosters lease_owner_changed request_id=req-13-172 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  education commit_ok request_id=req-13-172 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-13-172 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-13-172 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-13-172 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-13-172 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-172-replay route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L173: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L174: merge duplicate branches; sequence migration","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/education/b13l175.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/education/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-13-275\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-175\n\n{\"source\":\"grading\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-175-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngrading.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\neducation.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrosters.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/grading/b13l176.ts. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L177: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[EDUC-13278]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/education/resolver.ts b/src/education/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/education/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/education/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.grading.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.grading.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('education.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to grading. No schema or API changes intended. The rosters consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the grading worker (B13L179): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in rosters (B13L180). Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The immediate context is the education path, but verify its interactions with grading and rosters. The request originated in a spec-comment and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a support-thread.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the education handoff (B13L181)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter education-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/education\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-181] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-13-181] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-13-181] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-13-181] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-13-181] POST /v2/education idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-13-181] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-13-181] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-13-181] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/education/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw grading retries spike (B13L182): This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the spec-comment can act on the first while the support-thread preserves the second. Check interactions across education, grading, rosters.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L183: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the education guard (B13L184): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the grading path (B13L185)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/education/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-13-285\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-185\n\n{\"source\":\"grading\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-13-185-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\ngrading.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\neducation.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrosters.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B13L186, the rosters module: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the education path (B13L187): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our grading worker (B13L188)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/education/resolver.ts b/src/education/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/education/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/education/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.grading.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.grading.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('education.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/education/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to grading. No schema or API changes intended. The rosters consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This rosters module (B13L189): changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's education rollout (B13L190): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A grading incident report (B13L191). From the spec-comment: needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The rosters branch (B13L192)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-192 route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-13-192 subject=u-19 scopes=education:write,grading:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  grading snapshot_loaded request_id=req-13-192 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rosters lease_expiring request_id=req-13-192 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR education commit_failed request_id=req-13-192 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-13-192 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  education request_resumed request_id=req-13-192 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rosters lease_owner_changed request_id=req-13-192 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  education commit_ok request_id=req-13-192 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-13-192 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-13-192 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-13-192 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-13-192 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-13-192-replay route=/education/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: regroupe les chemins dupliqués sans changer le comportement public. Contexte technique : Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"One education caller (B13L193): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L194: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the rosters worker (B13L195): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the education module (B13L196): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the grading branch (B13L197). From the spec-comment: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RostersCaseB13L198: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"EducationCaseB13L199: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"GradingCaseB13L200: wire accessible UI; assess risks","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/health-data/b14l001.ts. From the postmortem: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncWorker (B14L002). From the review-comment: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L003: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the health-data worker (B14L004)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make health-data reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sync from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a privacy event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in sync (B14L005). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L006: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw health-data retries spike (B14L007): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the sync flow (B14L008)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/health-data/resolver.ts b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sync.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sync.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('health-data.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sync. No schema or API changes intended. The privacy consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the privacy guard (B14L009). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the health-data path (B14L010): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L011: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the privacy path (B14L012): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our health-data worker (B14L013)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/health-data/resolver.ts b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sync.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sync.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('health-data.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sync. No schema or API changes intended. The privacy consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L014: 重複分岐を統合","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's privacy rollout (B14L015): deja una guía breve con contrato, fallos y un ejemplo real. Contexto técnico: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are health-data, sync, privacy, and the tone should fit a postmortem.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"A health-data incident report (B14L016). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are health-data, sync, privacy, and the tone should fit a postmortem.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The sync branch (B14L017)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-017 route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-14-017 subject=u-19 scopes=health-data:write,sync:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sync snapshot_loaded request_id=req-14-017 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  privacy lease_expiring request_id=req-14-017 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR health-data commit_failed request_id=req-14-017 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-14-017 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  health-data request_resumed request_id=req-14-017 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  privacy lease_owner_changed request_id=req-14-017 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  health-data commit_ok request_id=req-14-017 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-14-017 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-14-017 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-14-017 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-14-017 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-017-replay route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One privacy caller (B14L018). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are health-data, sync, privacy, and the tone should fit a postmortem.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the health-data path (B14L019): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the sync worker (B14L020)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/health-data/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-14-120\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-020\n\n{\"source\":\"sync\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-020-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsync.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nhealth-data.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprivacy.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L021: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L022: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B14L023 mentions the sync flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/health-data/resolver.ts b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sync.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sync.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('health-data.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sync. No schema or API changes intended. The privacy consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the privacy failure (B14L024): The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the postmortem can act on the first while the review-comment preserves the second. Check interactions across health-data, sync, privacy.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/health-data/b14l025.go: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/sync/b14l026.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter health-data-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/health-data\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-026] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-14-026] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-14-026] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-14-026] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-026] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-14-026] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-14-026] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-14-026] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/health-data/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyWorker (B14L027): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[HEAL-14128]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/health-data/resolver.ts b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sync.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sync.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('health-data.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sync. No schema or API changes intended. The privacy consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: führe die doppelten Pfade zusammen, ohne externes Verhalten zu ändern. Technischer Kontext: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the sync worker (B14L029)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make health-data reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sync from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a privacy event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: reordena estas rutas duplicadas sin cambiar el comportamiento público. Contexto técnico: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L030: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the health-data handoff (B14L031). From the postmortem: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw sync retries spike (B14L032). Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the privacy flow (B14L033): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L034: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the sync path (B14L035): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B14L036, the privacy module: The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L037: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our sync worker (B14L038). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are health-data, sync, privacy, and the tone should fit a postmortem.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This privacy module (B14L039)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make health-data reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sync from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a privacy event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's health-data rollout (B14L040): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A sync incident report (B14L041)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter health-data-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/health-data\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-041] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-14-041] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-14-041] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-14-041] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-041] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-14-041] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-14-041] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-14-041] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/health-data/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The privacy branch (B14L042). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are health-data, sync, privacy, and the tone should fit a postmortem.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One health-data caller (B14L043)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/health-data/resolver.ts b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sync.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sync.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('health-data.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sync. No schema or API changes intended. The privacy consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the sync path (B14L044). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L045: wire accessible UI; assess risks","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the health-data module (B14L046). Occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the sync branch (B14L047): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B14L048 mentions the privacy flow: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the health-data failure (B14L049): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/sync/b14l050.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/health-data/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-14-150\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-050\n\n{\"source\":\"sync\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-050-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsync.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nhealth-data.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprivacy.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/privacy/b14l051.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter health-data-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/health-data\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-051] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-14-051] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-14-051] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-14-051] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-051] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-14-051] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-14-051] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-14-051] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/health-data/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataWorker (B14L052): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[SYNC-14153]: Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L054: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in health-data (B14L055). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L056: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw privacy retries spike (B14L057): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the health-data flow (B14L058). Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the sync guard (B14L059)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make health-data reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sync from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a privacy event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L060: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B14L061, the health-data module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter health-data-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/health-data\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-061] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-14-061] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-14-061] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-14-061] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-061] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-14-061] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-14-061] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-14-061] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/health-data/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L062: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our privacy worker (B14L063): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This health-data module (B14L064): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L065: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A privacy incident report (B14L066)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter health-data-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/health-data\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-066] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-14-066] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-14-066] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-14-066] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-066] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-14-066] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-14-066] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-14-066] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/health-data/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The health-data branch (B14L067)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-067 route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-14-067 subject=u-19 scopes=health-data:write,sync:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sync snapshot_loaded request_id=req-14-067 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  privacy lease_expiring request_id=req-14-067 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR health-data commit_failed request_id=req-14-067 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-14-067 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  health-data request_resumed request_id=req-14-067 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  privacy lease_owner_changed request_id=req-14-067 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  health-data commit_ok request_id=req-14-067 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-14-067 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-14-067 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-14-067 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-14-067 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-067-replay route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One sync caller (B14L068): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the privacy path (B14L069)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make health-data reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sync from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a privacy event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L070: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the sync module (B14L071). From the postmortem: must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L072: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L073: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the sync failure (B14L074). From the review-comment: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L075: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L076: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncWorker (B14L077)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-077 route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-14-077 subject=u-19 scopes=health-data:write,sync:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sync snapshot_loaded request_id=req-14-077 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  privacy lease_expiring request_id=req-14-077 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR health-data commit_failed request_id=req-14-077 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-14-077 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  health-data request_resumed request_id=req-14-077 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  privacy lease_owner_changed request_id=req-14-077 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  health-data commit_ok request_id=req-14-077 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-14-077 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-14-077 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-14-077 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-14-077 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-077-replay route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[PRIV-14178]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/health-data/resolver.ts b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sync.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sync.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('health-data.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sync. No schema or API changes intended. The privacy consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the health-data worker (B14L079): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in sync (B14L080)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/health-data/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-14-180\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-080\n\n{\"source\":\"sync\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-080-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsync.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nhealth-data.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprivacy.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the privacy handoff (B14L081): propón una secuencia con dependencias, métricas y rollback. Contexto técnico: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw health-data retries spike (B14L082). This raises an awkward scope question. The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are health-data, sync, privacy, and the tone should fit a postmortem.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L083: 记录 API 契约","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the privacy guard (B14L084). From the review-comment: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the health-data path (B14L085)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/health-data/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-14-185\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-085\n\n{\"source\":\"sync\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-085-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsync.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nhealth-data.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprivacy.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B14L086, the sync module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter health-data-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/health-data\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-086] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-14-086] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-14-086] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-14-086] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-086] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-14-086] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-14-086] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-14-086] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/health-data/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L087: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L088: document contract; finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This sync module (B14L089)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make health-data reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sync from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a privacy event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's privacy rollout (B14L090)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/health-data/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-14-190\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-090\n\n{\"source\":\"sync\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-090-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsync.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nhealth-data.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprivacy.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A health-data incident report (B14L091): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The sync branch (B14L092)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-092 route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-14-092 subject=u-19 scopes=health-data:write,sync:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sync snapshot_loaded request_id=req-14-092 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  privacy lease_expiring request_id=req-14-092 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR health-data commit_failed request_id=req-14-092 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-14-092 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  health-data request_resumed request_id=req-14-092 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  privacy lease_owner_changed request_id=req-14-092 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  health-data commit_ok request_id=req-14-092 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-14-092 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-14-092 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-14-092 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-14-092 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-092-replay route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: 给出迁移顺序、依赖、观测指标和 rollback 方案. 技术上下文： Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L093: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the health-data path (B14L094): corrija somente o ramo errado e acrescente um teste focado. Contexto técnico: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the sync worker (B14L095): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the privacy module (B14L096). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are health-data, sync, privacy, and the tone should fit a postmortem.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L097: trace retry loop; patch stale flag","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L098: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the privacy failure (B14L099). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L100: merge duplicate branches; patch stale flag","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/sync/b14l101.ts. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyWorker (B14L102): 移行順序、依存関係、metrics、rollback を整理して. 技術的な前提: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"[HEAL-14203]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/health-data/resolver.ts b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sync.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sync.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('health-data.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sync. No schema or API changes intended. The privacy consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the sync worker (B14L104): Why does this branch skip the cache sometimes? Determine whether it is intentional before proposing any correction.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in privacy (B14L105): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L106: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw sync retries spike (B14L107)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-107 route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-14-107 subject=u-19 scopes=health-data:write,sync:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sync snapshot_loaded request_id=req-14-107 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  privacy lease_expiring request_id=req-14-107 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR health-data commit_failed request_id=req-14-107 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-14-107 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  health-data request_resumed request_id=req-14-107 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  privacy lease_owner_changed request_id=req-14-107 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  health-data commit_ok request_id=req-14-107 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-14-107 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-14-107 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-14-107 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-14-107 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-107-replay route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the privacy flow (B14L108). From the review-comment: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the health-data guard (B14L109). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the sync path (B14L110): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B14L111, the privacy module: The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the health-data path (B14L112). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are health-data, sync, privacy, and the tone should fit a postmortem.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L113: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L114: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's health-data rollout (B14L115). From the postmortem: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A sync incident report (B14L116)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter health-data-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/health-data\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-116] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-14-116] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-14-116] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-14-116] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-116] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-14-116] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-14-116] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-14-116] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/health-data/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L117: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L118: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the sync path (B14L119): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L120: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the health-data module (B14L121). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the sync branch (B14L122): This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the postmortem can act on the first while the review-comment preserves the second. Check interactions across health-data, sync, privacy.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L123: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L124: documente contrat","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L125: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/privacy/b14l126.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter health-data-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/health-data\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-126] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-14-126] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-14-126] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-14-126] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-126] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-14-126] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-14-126] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-14-126] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/health-data/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataWorker (B14L127)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-127 route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-14-127 subject=u-19 scopes=health-data:write,sync:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sync snapshot_loaded request_id=req-14-127 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  privacy lease_expiring request_id=req-14-127 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR health-data commit_failed request_id=req-14-127 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-14-127 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  health-data request_resumed request_id=req-14-127 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  privacy lease_owner_changed request_id=req-14-127 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  health-data commit_ok request_id=req-14-127 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-14-127 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-14-127 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-14-127 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-14-127 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-127-replay route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[SYNC-14228]: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the privacy worker (B14L129). From the postmortem: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in health-data (B14L130): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L131: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw privacy retries spike (B14L132): desenhe sequência, dependências, métricas e rollback. Contexto técnico: privacy module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the health-data flow (B14L133). Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the sync guard (B14L134)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make health-data reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sync from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a privacy event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: avalie a mudança e aponte riscos concretos sem editar o código. Contexto técnico: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L135: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L136: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L137: patch stale flag; trace retry loop","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our privacy worker (B14L138)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/health-data/resolver.ts b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sync.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sync.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('health-data.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sync. No schema or API changes intended. The privacy consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This health-data module (B14L139): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's sync rollout (B14L140). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A privacy incident report (B14L141)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter health-data-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/health-data\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-141] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-14-141] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-14-141] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-14-141] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-141] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-14-141] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-14-141] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-14-141] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/health-data/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The health-data branch (B14L142)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-142 route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-14-142 subject=u-19 scopes=health-data:write,sync:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sync snapshot_loaded request_id=req-14-142 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  privacy lease_expiring request_id=req-14-142 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR health-data commit_failed request_id=req-14-142 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-14-142 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  health-data request_resumed request_id=req-14-142 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  privacy lease_owner_changed request_id=req-14-142 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  health-data commit_ok request_id=req-14-142 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-14-142 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-14-142 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-14-142 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-14-142 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-142-replay route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: erstelle eine knappe Maintainer-Doku mit Vertrag, Fehlerfällen und Beispiel. Technischer Kontext: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L143: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the privacy path (B14L144). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L145: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L146: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the privacy branch (B14L147): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B14L148 mentions the health-data flow. This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are health-data, sync, privacy, and the tone should fit a postmortem.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the sync failure (B14L149). From the postmortem: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/privacy/b14l150.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/health-data/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-14-250\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-150\n\n{\"source\":\"sync\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-150-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsync.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nhealth-data.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprivacy.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L151: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncWorker (B14L152): needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[PRIV-14253]: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the health-data worker (B14L154). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in sync (B14L155). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the privacy handoff (B14L156). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are health-data, sync, privacy, and the tone should fit a postmortem.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L157: patch stale flag; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the sync flow (B14L158)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/health-data/resolver.ts b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sync.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sync.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('health-data.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sync. No schema or API changes intended. The privacy consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the privacy guard (B14L159). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are health-data, sync, privacy, and the tone should fit a postmortem.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the health-data path (B14L160)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/health-data/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-14-260\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-160\n\n{\"source\":\"sync\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-160-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsync.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nhealth-data.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprivacy.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B14L161, the sync module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter health-data-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/health-data\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-161] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-14-161] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-14-161] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-14-161] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-161] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-14-161] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-14-161] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-14-161] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/health-data/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the privacy path (B14L162)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-162 route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-14-162 subject=u-19 scopes=health-data:write,sync:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sync snapshot_loaded request_id=req-14-162 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  privacy lease_expiring request_id=req-14-162 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR health-data commit_failed request_id=req-14-162 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-14-162 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  health-data request_resumed request_id=req-14-162 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  privacy lease_owner_changed request_id=req-14-162 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  health-data commit_ok request_id=req-14-162 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-14-162 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-14-162 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-14-162 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-14-162 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-162-replay route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L163: merge duplicate branches; patch stale flag","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This sync module (B14L164)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make health-data reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sync from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a privacy event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's privacy rollout (B14L165)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/health-data/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-14-265\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-165\n\n{\"source\":\"sync\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-165-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsync.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nhealth-data.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprivacy.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A health-data incident report (B14L166). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L167: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L168: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L169: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L170: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the privacy module (B14L171): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the health-data branch (B14L172): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B14L173 mentions the sync flow: Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the privacy failure (B14L174). From the review-comment: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/health-data/b14l175.go. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/sync/b14l176.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter health-data-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/health-data\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-176] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-14-176] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-14-176] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-14-176] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-14-176] POST /v2/health-data idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-14-176] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-14-176] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-14-176] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/health-data/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: branche les états loading, empty, error et success de façon accessible. Contexte technique : Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyWorker (B14L177). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[HEAL-14278]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/health-data/resolver.ts b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/health-data/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.sync.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.sync.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('health-data.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/health-data/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to sync. No schema or API changes intended. The privacy consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L179: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in privacy (B14L180)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/health-data/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-14-280\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-180\n\n{\"source\":\"sync\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-180-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsync.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nhealth-data.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprivacy.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L181: merge duplicate branches; sequence migration","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L182: Vertrag dokumentieren; Auth-Endpoint bauen","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"PrivacyCaseB14L183: merge duplicate branches; patch stale flag","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the health-data guard (B14L184)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make health-data reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads sync from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a privacy event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L185: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B14L186, the privacy module: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the health-data path (B14L187). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the health-data path, but verify its interactions with sync and privacy. The request originated in a postmortem and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a review-comment.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L188: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This privacy module (B14L189). From the postmortem: needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's health-data rollout (B14L190): Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the postmortem can act on the first while the review-comment preserves the second. Check interactions across health-data, sync, privacy.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A sync incident report (B14L191). This raises an awkward scope question. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. Separate understanding suspicious behavior from proving that an actual defect exists. The affected areas are health-data, sync, privacy, and the tone should fit a postmortem.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The privacy branch (B14L192)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-192 route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-14-192 subject=u-19 scopes=health-data:write,sync:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sync snapshot_loaded request_id=req-14-192 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  privacy lease_expiring request_id=req-14-192 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR health-data commit_failed request_id=req-14-192 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-14-192 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  health-data request_resumed request_id=req-14-192 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  privacy lease_owner_changed request_id=req-14-192 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  health-data commit_ok request_id=req-14-192 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-14-192 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-14-192 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-14-192 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-14-192 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-192-replay route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L193: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SyncCaseB14L194: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the privacy worker (B14L195)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/health-data/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-14-295\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-195\n\n{\"source\":\"sync\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-14-195-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nsync.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\nhealth-data.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nprivacy.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L196: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the sync branch (B14L197)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-197 route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-14-197 subject=u-19 scopes=health-data:write,sync:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  sync snapshot_loaded request_id=req-14-197 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  privacy lease_expiring request_id=req-14-197 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR health-data commit_failed request_id=req-14-197 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-14-197 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  health-data request_resumed request_id=req-14-197 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  privacy lease_owner_changed request_id=req-14-197 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  health-data commit_ok request_id=req-14-197 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-14-197 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-14-197 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-14-197 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-14-197 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-14-197-replay route=/health-data/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B14L198 mentions the privacy flow: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the postmortem can act on the first while the review-comment preserves the second. Check interactions across health-data, sync, privacy.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"HealthDataCaseB14L199: trace retry loop; assess risks","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/sync/b14l200.go: propose un ordre, les dépendances, les métriques et le rollback. Contexte technique : sync module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"src/deployments/b15l001.ts: The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsWorker (B15L002). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[ROLL-15103]: Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L004: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L005: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the rollbacks handoff (B15L006). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L007: sequence migration; merge duplicate branches","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the feature-flags flow (B15L008). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks, and the tone should fit a migration-brief.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L009: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the deployments path (B15L010). From the dev-chat: needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B15L011, the feature-flags module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter deployments-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/deployments\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-011] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-15-011] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-15-011] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-15-011] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-011] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-15-011] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-15-011] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-15-011] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/deployments/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the rollbacks path (B15L012). Occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our deployments worker (B15L013)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This feature-flags module (B15L014). From the dev-chat: uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L015: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L016: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The feature-flags branch (B15L017): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L018: make this API work","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the deployments path (B15L019)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: revisa el cambio y señala riesgos concretos sin tocar el código. Contexto técnico: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the feature-flags worker (B15L020): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the rollbacks module (B15L021). This raises an awkward scope question. The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks, and the tone should fit a migration-brief.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the deployments branch (B15L022)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-15-022 route=/deployments/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-15-022 subject=u-19 scopes=deployments:write,feature-flags:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  feature-flags snapshot_loaded request_id=req-15-022 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rollbacks lease_expiring request_id=req-15-022 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR deployments commit_failed request_id=req-15-022 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-15-022 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  deployments request_resumed request_id=req-15-022 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rollbacks lease_owner_changed request_id=req-15-022 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  deployments commit_ok request_id=req-15-022 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-15-022 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-15-022 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-15-022 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-15-022 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-15-022-replay route=/deployments/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: propose un ordre, les dépendances, les métriques et le rollback. Contexte technique : Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L023: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L024: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/deployments/b15l025.go: is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/feature-flags/b15l026.ts\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter deployments-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/deployments\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-026] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-15-026] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-15-026] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-15-026] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-026] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-15-026] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-15-026] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-15-026] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/deployments/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L027: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L028: document contract","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L029: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L030: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L031: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw feature-flags retries spike (B15L032). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the rollbacks flow (B15L033)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L034: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L035: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B15L036, the rollbacks module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter deployments-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/deployments\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-036] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-15-036] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-15-036] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-15-036] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-036] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-15-036] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-15-036] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-15-036] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/deployments/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L037: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L038: evalúa riesgos","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"This rollbacks module (B15L039). The client contract is approved and now needs a complete server path. Introduce the endpoint using existing routing and service conventions, validate identifiers and bounded pagination, enforce tenant-scoped authorization, and make repeated submissions idempotent. Persist through the current repository layer, return the documented structured errors, and emit metrics without logging user content. Cover success, malformed input, forbidden access, duplicate requests, and storage failure in integration tests. Keep schema changes backward compatible and include a safe rollout note if a migration or feature flag is required. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's deployments rollout (B15L040)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/deployments/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-15-140\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-15-040\n\n{\"source\":\"feature-flags\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-15-040-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfeature-flags.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndeployments.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrollbacks.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L041: why does this feel flaky?","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The rollbacks branch (B15L042): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One deployments caller (B15L043)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: una os caminhos duplicados sem alterar o comportamento público. Contexto técnico: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the feature-flags path (B15L044)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the rollbacks worker (B15L045): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L046: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the feature-flags branch (B15L047). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks, and the tone should fit a migration-brief.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B15L048 mentions the rollbacks flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L049: finish authenticated endpoint; document contract","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/feature-flags/b15l050.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/deployments/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-15-150\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-15-050\n\n{\"source\":\"feature-flags\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-15-050-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfeature-flags.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndeployments.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrollbacks.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/rollbacks/b15l051.ts: The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsWorker (B15L052): is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[FEAT-15153]. Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the rollbacks worker (B15L054)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in deployments (B15L055): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the feature-flags handoff (B15L056): This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the migration-brief can act on the first while the dev-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks.","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw rollbacks retries spike (B15L057): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the deployments flow (B15L058). This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks, and the tone should fit a migration-brief.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the feature-flags guard (B15L059): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L060: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L061: could this be cleaner?","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L062: wire accessible UI; assess risks","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L063: make this screen feel finished","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This deployments module (B15L064)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's feature-flags rollout (B15L065): korrigiere nur den falschen Zweig und ergänze einen gezielten Test. Technischer Kontext: One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"A rollbacks incident report (B15L066): The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the migration-brief can act on the first while the dev-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The deployments branch (B15L067). From the migration-brief: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L068: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the rollbacks path (B15L069): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the deployments worker (B15L070): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L071: sequence migration","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the rollbacks branch (B15L072): This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the migration-brief can act on the first while the dev-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L073: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the feature-flags failure (B15L074)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/rollbacks/b15l075.go\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/deployments/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-15-175\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-15-075\n\n{\"source\":\"feature-flags\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-15-075-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfeature-flags.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndeployments.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrollbacks.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Complete the affected interface, including loading, empty, error, retry, focus, and narrow-screen behavior, using the existing hooks and design tokens.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L076: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L077: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L078: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the deployments worker (B15L079). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L080: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the rollbacks handoff (B15L081)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter deployments-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/deployments\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-081] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-15-081] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-15-081] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-15-081] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-081] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-15-081] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-15-081] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-15-081] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/deployments/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L082: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the feature-flags flow (B15L083): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L084: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the deployments path (B15L085). From the migration-brief: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L086: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the rollbacks path (B15L087). Changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our deployments worker (B15L088)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This feature-flags module (B15L089). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's rollbacks rollout (B15L090)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/deployments/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-15-190\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-15-090\n\n{\"source\":\"feature-flags\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-15-090-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfeature-flags.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndeployments.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrollbacks.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L091: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The feature-flags branch (B15L092)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-15-092 route=/deployments/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-15-092 subject=u-19 scopes=deployments:write,feature-flags:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  feature-flags snapshot_loaded request_id=req-15-092 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rollbacks lease_expiring request_id=req-15-092 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR deployments commit_failed request_id=req-15-092 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-15-092 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  deployments request_resumed request_id=req-15-092 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rollbacks lease_owner_changed request_id=req-15-092 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  deployments commit_ok request_id=req-15-092 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-15-092 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-15-092 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-15-092 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-15-092 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-15-092-replay route=/deployments/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One rollbacks caller (B15L093): occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L094: assess risks; trace retry loop","purpose":"review","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the feature-flags worker (B15L095). From the migration-brief: has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the rollbacks module (B15L096)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter deployments-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/deployments\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-096] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-15-096] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-15-096] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-15-096] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-096] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-15-096] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-15-096] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-15-096] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/deployments/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the deployments branch (B15L097). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B15L098 mentions the feature-flags flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L099: make this easier to follow","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/deployments/b15l100.go: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/feature-flags/b15l101.ts: Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksWorker (B15L102)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-15-102 route=/deployments/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-15-102 subject=u-19 scopes=deployments:write,feature-flags:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  feature-flags snapshot_loaded request_id=req-15-102 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rollbacks lease_expiring request_id=req-15-102 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR deployments commit_failed request_id=req-15-102 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-15-102 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  deployments request_resumed request_id=req-15-102 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rollbacks lease_owner_changed request_id=req-15-102 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  deployments commit_ok request_id=req-15-102 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-15-102 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-15-102 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-15-102 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-15-102 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-15-102-replay route=/deployments/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L103: assess risks; document contract","purpose":"review","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the feature-flags worker (B15L104)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L105: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the deployments handoff (B15L106)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter deployments-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/deployments\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-106] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-15-106] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-15-106] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-15-106] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-106] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-15-106] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-15-106] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-15-106] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/deployments/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw feature-flags retries spike (B15L107). The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the rollbacks flow (B15L108): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the deployments guard (B15L109)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the feature-flags path (B15L110): una os caminhos duplicados sem alterar o comportamento público. Contexto técnico: feature-flags module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B15L111, the rollbacks module. Must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the deployments path (B15L112). From the dev-chat: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our feature-flags worker (B15L113)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This rollbacks module (B15L114): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's deployments rollout (B15L115). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A feature-flags incident report (B15L116)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter deployments-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/deployments\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-116] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-15-116] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-15-116] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-15-116] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-116] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-15-116] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-15-116] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-15-116] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/deployments/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The rollbacks branch (B15L117). Uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L118: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the feature-flags path (B15L119)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the rollbacks worker (B15L120): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the deployments module (B15L121)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter deployments-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/deployments\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-121] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-15-121] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-15-121] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-15-121] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-121] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-15-121] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-15-121] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-15-121] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/deployments/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the feature-flags branch (B15L122). Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B15L123 mentions the rollbacks flow: erstelle eine knappe Maintainer-Doku mit Vertrag, Fehlerfällen und Beispiel. Technischer Kontext: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"backendImpl","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the deployments failure (B15L124): Rename the misleading helper and move its repeated guard beside the caller, preserving every observable result.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L125: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L126: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsWorker (B15L127): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[FEAT-15228]\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L129: finish authenticated endpoint; assess risks","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in deployments (B15L130). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks, and the tone should fit a migration-brief.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the feature-flags handoff (B15L131)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter deployments-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/deployments\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-131] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-15-131] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-15-131] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-15-131] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-131] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-15-131] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-15-131] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-15-131] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/deployments/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw rollbacks retries spike (B15L132). From the dev-chat: changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the deployments flow (B15L133)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L134: tidy this small thing","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the rollbacks path (B15L135)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/deployments/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-15-235\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-15-135\n\n{\"source\":\"feature-flags\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-15-135-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfeature-flags.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndeployments.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrollbacks.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L136: 安排迁移顺序","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the feature-flags path (B15L137): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our rollbacks worker (B15L138)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Make the smallest safe correction supported by this evidence, add one focused regression test, and avoid unrelated cleanup or dependency changes.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This deployments module (B15L139). A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's feature-flags rollout (B15L140)\nCaptured request and trace capture:\nPOST /api/v3/deployments/reconcile?dry_run=false HTTP/1.1\nHost: api.internal.example\nContent-Type: application/json\nIdempotency-Key: idem-15-240\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-15-140\n\n{\"source\":\"feature-flags\",\"mode\":\"merge\",\"items\":[{\"id\":\"a-17\",\"version\":8},{\"id\":\"b-04\",\"version\":3}],\"notify\":true}\n\nHTTP/1.1 202 Accepted\nContent-Type: application/json\nRetry-After: 2\n\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"queued\",\"links\":{\"status\":\"/api/v3/jobs/job-882\"}}\n\nGET /api/v3/jobs/job-882 HTTP/1.1\nX-Tenant: tenant-42\nX-Request-Id: req-15-140-poll-1\n\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\n{\"job_id\":\"job-882\",\"state\":\"complete\",\"result\":{\"merged\":2,\"skipped\":0},\"warnings\":[]}\n\nTrace spans:\ngateway.receive              0.0ms   3.8ms status=202\nauth.authorize               0.7ms   1.2ms decision=allow\nqueue.publish                2.1ms   1.4ms partition=11 offset=8041\nworker.consume             206.4ms  48.2ms delivery=1\nfeature-flags.read                  211.1ms  17.7ms rows=2 replica=true\ndeployments.write                 229.8ms  20.9ms rows=2 transaction=tx-71\nrollbacks.publish               251.4ms   3.1ms event_id=evt-55\njob.complete               254.9ms   0.8ms\nCustomer report: polling sometimes returns complete, but a second notification arrives roughly thirty seconds later with the same event identifier and a different attempt number.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"A rollbacks incident report (B15L141): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L142: trace retry loop","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One feature-flags caller (B15L143)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Complete the server behavior implied here with tenant authorization, validation, idempotency, structured errors, metrics, and integration coverage for retries and partial failure.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the rollbacks path (B15L144). Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the deployments worker (B15L145): 移行順序、依存関係、metrics、rollback を整理して. 技術的な前提: deployments module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L146: wire accessible UI; document contract","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L147: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L148: does this seem safe?","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the feature-flags failure (B15L149)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"tools/rollbacks/b15l150.go. This raises an awkward scope question. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks, and the tone should fit a migration-brief.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/deployments/b15l151.ts: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example. Separately, it changed in yesterday's branch; inspect the behavior and call out correctness, security, or compatibility risks with concrete references.","purpose":"writing","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsWorker (B15L152)\nCaptured production log tail:\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.083Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-15-152 route=/deployments/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.091Z DEBUG auth policy_resolved request_id=req-15-152 subject=u-19 scopes=deployments:write,feature-flags:read\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.112Z INFO  feature-flags snapshot_loaded request_id=req-15-152 version=902 items=148 source=replica\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.130Z WARN  rollbacks lease_expiring request_id=req-15-152 remaining_ms=34 owner=worker-7\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.151Z ERROR deployments commit_failed request_id=req-15-152 code=deadline_exceeded retryable=true elapsed_ms=68\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.152Z INFO  gateway retry_scheduled request_id=req-15-152 delay_ms=25 attempt=2\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.179Z INFO  deployments request_resumed request_id=req-15-152 lease=lease-887\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.184Z WARN  rollbacks lease_owner_changed request_id=req-15-152 previous=worker-7 current=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.207Z INFO  deployments commit_ok request_id=req-15-152 version=903 writes=6\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.209Z ERROR cleanup release_rejected request_id=req-15-152 reason=owner_mismatch expected=worker-7 actual=worker-3\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.211Z INFO  gateway response_sent request_id=req-15-152 status=200 elapsed_ms=128\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.214Z ERROR worker unhandled_exception request_id=req-15-152 type=LeaseOwnershipError\n2026-07-29T18:42:11.215Z WARN  queue message_requeued request_id=req-15-152 delivery_count=4 visibility_timeout_s=30\n2026-07-29T18:42:41.226Z INFO  gateway request_started request_id=req-15-152-replay route=/deployments/sync tenant=t-42 attempt=1\nDashboard note: successful responses increased while queue depth and duplicate-write alarms rose together.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"[ROLL-15253]. Has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the deployments worker (B15L154). Is still a static shell. Connect loading, empty, error, and success states while preserving the existing component conventions.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L155: retry loop を追跡; 古い flag を修正","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"quickFix","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"ja"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L156: finish authenticated endpoint","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw deployments retries spike (B15L157): The mock already defines the interaction. Complete only the missing focus and error states, then note any design ambiguity.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the feature-flags flow (B15L158). This raises an awkward scope question. This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks, and the tone should fit a migration-brief.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Security questioned the rollbacks guard (B15L159): needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the deployments path (B15L160): must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones. Separately, it has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior.","purpose":"planning","secondary":"refactor","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B15L161, the feature-flags module: branche les états loading, empty, error et success de façon accessible. Contexte technique : The product shell exists, but the interaction is incomplete and keyboard users cannot finish the flow. Connect the view to the existing data hook, render distinct loading, empty, failure, and populated states, and keep focus stable when results refresh. The layout must work at narrow mobile widths and at two hundred percent zoom, use the established design tokens, and announce validation errors accessibly. Preserve deep links and browser back behavior. Add component tests for keyboard navigation and the retry action without replacing the repository's current state-management pattern. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks, and the tone should fit a migration-brief.","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the rollbacks path (B15L162). Needs a production-ready endpoint with validation, authorization, idempotency, structured errors, and focused integration coverage.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our deployments worker (B15L163)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This feature-flags module (B15L164)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: rédige une note mainteneur avec contrat, erreurs et exemple concret. Contexte technique : Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"fr"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L165: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L166: assess risks","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"The feature-flags branch (B15L167): ligue os estados loading, empty, error e success com acessibilidade. Contexto técnico: feature-flags module; keep existing API, tests, metrics, and error semantics stable","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"pt"}
{"prompt":"One rollbacks caller (B15L168): Tell me what this branch does and whether its assumptions are safe; only report defects that the code actually supports.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the deployments path (B15L169): has three nearly identical control paths. Reshape them around one shared abstraction without changing public behavior. Separately, it must move behind the new contract next quarter. Lay out sequencing, dependencies, rollback points, and verification milestones.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":"planning","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the feature-flags worker (B15L170). From the dev-chat: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Heads-up: the rollbacks module (B15L171)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter deployments-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/deployments\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-171] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-15-171] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-15-171] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-15-171] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-171] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-15-171] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-15-171] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-15-171] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/deployments/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Assess the pasted artifact for correctness, security, compatibility, and test gaps. Cite the exact lines that support each finding and do not edit the repository.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L172: sequence migration; document contract","purpose":"planning","secondary":"writing","mixed":true,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B15L173 mentions the feature-flags flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the rollbacks failure (B15L174)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: 请整理一份简短维护文档，包含契约、失败场景和真实示例. 技术上下文： Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"zh"}
{"prompt":"tools/deployments/b15l175.go: Intermittent failures are appearing only when a request is retried while an earlier attempt is completing, and the existing logs disagree about which attempt owns the final state. Follow the data and control flow from entry point through persistence and cleanup, form a specific hypothesis, and test it rather than masking the symptom. Check timer cancellation, shared mutable state, idempotency keys, and error translation. Once the cause is established, add the smallest regression test that reproduces it and describe the evidence connecting the failure to the responsible branch. After completing that main task, also handle this separate need: This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. Keep the two deliverables visibly distinct so the migration-brief can act on the first while the dev-chat preserves the second. Check interactions across deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":"review","mixed":true,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"src/feature-flags/b15l176.ts: needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L177: Migration ordnen","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"core","lang":"de"}
{"prompt":"[DEPL-15278]. Needs a concise maintainer note covering its contract, failure modes, and one realistic usage example.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Support noticed the feature-flags worker (B15L179)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"QA isolated a failure in rollbacks (B15L180). This raises an awkward scope question. A narrow regression appeared after the last option rename: one fallback path still reads the deprecated field and silently chooses the wrong default. Patch only that path, preserve the current API and surrounding control flow, and add a focused test that fails before the correction. Please avoid opportunistic cleanup, dependency changes, or broad formatting churn. Check both an explicitly supplied value and the absent-value case, then report the exact files touched and why the change cannot affect callers that already use the new field. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks, and the tone should fit a migration-brief.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"PM flagged the deployments handoff (B15L181)\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter deployments-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/deployments\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-181] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-15-181] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-15-181] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-15-181] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-181] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-15-181] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-15-181] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-15-181] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/deployments/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"SRE saw feature-flags retries spike (B15L182). Uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Design called out the rollbacks flow (B15L183)\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Reshape the responsible code so duplicated decisions have one owner while behavior, ordering, metrics, and public errors stay stable; add characterization coverage first.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L184: what should happen next?","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"vague-eval","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"During failover, the feature-flags path (B15L185). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks, and the tone should fit a migration-brief.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"After deploy B15L186, the rollbacks module\nCaptured pasted CI failure:\n$ pnpm test --filter deployments-integration -- --runInBand\nRUN v3.8.2 /workspace/apps/deployments\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-186] seed tenant=acme actor=user-17 region=eu-west-1\n[req-15-186] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=1\n[req-15-186] repository.insert status=committed version=18 elapsed=43ms\n[req-15-186] response status=201 body.id=obj-81 cache=miss\nstdout | reconcile preserves an existing reservation\n[req-15-186] POST /v2/deployments idempotency-key=case-441 attempt=2\n[req-15-186] repository.lookup status=not_found replica=reader-2 lag=87ms\n[req-15-186] repository.insert status=conflict code=unique_violation elapsed=12ms\n[req-15-186] error.translate input=unique_violation output=internal_error\nFAIL test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts > retries > preserves an existing reservation\nAssertionError: expected 500 to equal 200\n  at test/integration/reconcile.spec.ts:184:31\n  at async withTenant (test/support/tenant.ts:47:5)\nExpected: 200\nReceived: 500\nUnhandledPromiseRejection: Error: metric scope closed before retry counter flushed\n  at MetricsScope.increment (src/metrics/scope.ts:92:13)\n  at finalizeAttempt (src/deployments/reconcile.ts:211:9)\nTest Files 1 failed | 37 passed (38)\nTests 1 failed | 286 passed (287)\nDuration 18.42s\n\nRequest: Produce a staged execution plan with owners, dependencies, observability, compatibility checks, rollout gates, and an explicit rollback path; make no code changes yet.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Whenever retries overlap, the deployments path (B15L187). This is about to ship behind a gradual rollout, but the change crosses validation, caching, and asynchronous cleanup. Read the relevant code as a whole and assess whether the new behavior is correct under retries, concurrent callers, stale data, and partial failure. Point to exact files or branches for every concern, separate blocking defects from optional improvements, and note any missing tests. Also check compatibility with existing callers and whether logs could expose sensitive values. Do not edit anything; return a prioritized assessment with a brief rationale. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"review","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Our feature-flags worker (B15L188): The API page promises idempotent creation. Wire that documented behavior into the existing handler and cover duplicate requests.","purpose":"backendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"This rollbacks module (B15L189). This raises an awkward scope question. This area has to migrate without interrupting active users, and several consumers still rely on undocumented ordering. Draft an execution path that begins with discovery and characterization, identifies dependency owners, introduces compatibility seams, and ends with removal of the old route. Include checkpoints for observability, load testing, privacy review, staged rollout, and rollback. Call out assumptions that need confirmation, propose how to measure success, and divide the work into reviewable increments. No code changes yet; the result should let the team estimate risk and assign follow-up tickets. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks, and the tone should fit a migration-brief.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Yesterday's deployments rollout (B15L190): uses the old option name in one branch. Make the smallest safe correction and keep the surrounding structure intact. Separately, it occasionally stalls after a retry. Trace the likely execution path, identify the cause, and prove it with a focused regression test.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":"debugging","mixed":true,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"mixed","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"FeatureFlagsCaseB15L191: wire accessible UI","purpose":"frontendImpl","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"RollbacksCaseB15L192: merge duplicate branches","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"One deployments caller (B15L193): The code works, but its contract is opaque. Describe what callers may rely on; do not turn the note into a feature patch.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Somehow the feature-flags path (B15L194): One local name hides the real unit. Correct that small mismatch without redesigning the surrounding module.","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Oddly, the rollbacks worker (B15L195). This raises an awkward scope question. The team keeps learning its behavior from scattered comments and old tickets, and new maintainers are making incompatible assumptions. Produce a practical guide that states the contract, walks through a normal request, describes retry and cancellation semantics, and includes one troubleshooting example. Keep it close to the code, distinguish guarantees from current implementation details, mention privacy implications, and avoid promising behavior the tests do not establish. Finish with a short checklist someone can use before changing the module. The boundary is whether to propose a safer structure or perform that restructuring now. The affected areas are deployments, feature-flags, rollbacks, and the tone should fit a migration-brief.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"DeploymentsCaseB15L196: patch stale flag","purpose":"quickFix","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"easy","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Sorry, the feature-flags branch (B15L197): Describe how to split this oversized module safely, with characterization steps and stopping points; leave the files untouched.","purpose":"planning","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"medium","slice":"boundary","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"Customer report B15L198 mentions the rollbacks flow\nCaptured proposed patch:\ndiff --git a/src/deployments/resolver.ts b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\nindex 8c281aa..1af644e 100644\n--- a/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n+++ b/src/deployments/resolver.ts\n@@ -42,18 +42,34 @@ export async function resolve(input: Input, ctx: Context) {\n-  const cached = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n-  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached)\n-  const record = await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key)\n-  return normalize(record)\n+  const state = await readState(input, ctx)\n+  if (state.kind === 'hit') return state.value\n+  if (state.kind === 'missing' && input.allowEmpty) return EMPTY_RESULT\n+  return normalize(await ctx.feature-flags.load(input.key))\n }\n+\n+async function readState(input: Input, ctx: Context): Promise<State> {\n+  try {\n+    const raw = await ctx.cache.get(input.key)\n+    if (raw == null) return { kind: 'missing' }\n+    ctx.metrics.increment('deployments.cache.hit', 1, { key: input.key })\n+    return { kind: 'hit', value: JSON.parse(raw) }\n+  } catch (error) {\n+    ctx.logger.warn('cache read failed', { input, error })\n+    return { kind: 'missing' }\n+  }\n+}\ndiff --git a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\nindex f042d19..4d71d90 100644\n--- a/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n+++ b/test/deployments/resolver.spec.ts\n@@ -88,6 +88,10 @@ describe('resolve', () => {\n+  it('returns empty when cache misses and allowEmpty is true', async () => {\n+    expect(await resolve(input({ allowEmpty: true }), ctx())).toEqual(EMPTY_RESULT)\n+  })\n })\nPR description: centralize cache handling, tolerate malformed entries, and reduce calls to feature-flags. No schema or API changes intended. The rollbacks consumer is not covered by this test fixture.\n\nRequest: Turn this material into a concise maintainer-facing note that states the observed contract, operational warning signs, and a reproducible example; do not invent guarantees.","purpose":"writing","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"en"}
{"prompt":"On-call traced the deployments failure (B15L199)\nCaptured ticket excerpt:\nTitle: Make deployments reconciliation safe during regional failover\nOwner: Platform Foundations\nTarget: 2026-Q3 maintenance window\nBackground:\nCustomers can keep editing while traffic moves between regions. The current worker reads feature-flags from a local replica, obtains a ninety-second lease, writes normalized rows, and publishes a rollbacks event. During the June exercise, replica lag exceeded the lease renewal threshold. Two workers then published different versions for the same logical operation.\nAcceptance notes:\n- Existing mobile clients must not receive a new required field.\n- A repeated operation with the same key returns the first committed result.\n- Operators can identify the winning attempt without user content in logs.\n- Rollout begins with internal tenants, then one percent, ten percent, and full traffic.\n- The old worker remains available for rollback for seven days.\nKnown constraints:\n- Table rewrites longer than thirty seconds are not approved.\n- The queue offers at-least-once delivery and may reorder messages.\n- Analytics currently treats every published event as a unique operation.\n- Security wants tenant authorization checked before idempotency lookup.\nOpen questions:\nWho owns cleanup after rollback? Can the event schema gain an optional attempt identifier? Which dashboard is authoritative when the database and queue disagree?\nComment from QA: Please include a deterministic failover test; sleeps made the earlier suite flaky.\n\nRequest: averigua por qué se repite el intento y demuéstralo con una prueba. Contexto técnico: Trace the conflicting attempts to a specific cause, test the hypothesis, and show how a deterministic regression case reproduces the failure before proposing a patch.","purpose":"debugging","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"pasted-context","lang":"es"}
{"prompt":"tools/feature-flags/b15l200.go. Over time this module accumulated several paths that normalize the same input, choose a policy, and emit nearly identical results. Rework it so those decisions live in one obvious place while public types, error messages, and observable ordering remain stable. Prefer small named helpers over a new framework, preserve metrics and cancellation behavior, and keep the diff reviewable. Add characterization coverage where behavior is implicit, remove dead branches only when the tests prove they are unreachable, and leave a short note explaining the resulting ownership boundaries. The immediate context is the deployments path, but verify its interactions with feature-flags and rollbacks. The request originated in a migration-brief and should be understandable to someone reading it later from a dev-chat.","purpose":"refactor","secondary":null,"mixed":false,"difficulty":"hard","slice":"core","lang":"en"}