docs: verify Claude session control - #92
Conversation
galligan
changed the title
|
@cursor review |
![cursor[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1210556?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 39c4c10c20
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@cursor review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
✅ Bugbot reviewed your changes and found no new issues!
Comment @cursor review or bugbot run to trigger another review on this PR
Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 14c383b. Configure here.
|
@cursor review |
|
@codex review |
|
@cursor review |
|
@codex review |
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: e66358d468
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
✅ Bugbot reviewed your changes and found no new issues!
Comment @cursor review or bugbot run to trigger another review on this PR
Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit ea126d8. Configure here.
|
@cursor review |
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: b1cfea81ea
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
✅ Bugbot reviewed your changes and found no new issues!
Comment @cursor review or bugbot run to trigger another review on this PR
Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit b1cfea8. Configure here.
|
@cursor review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
✅ Bugbot reviewed your changes and found no new issues!
Comment @cursor review or bugbot run to trigger another review on this PR
Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 830b105. Configure here.
|
@cursor review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
✅ Bugbot reviewed your changes and found no new issues!
Comment @cursor review or bugbot run to trigger another review on this PR
Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit a42b544. Configure here.
1 participant
Context
Dispatch needs an evidence-backed Claude execution-provider plan before any adapter, provider flags, migrations, gateway, or release work begins. Claude Code 2.1.210 exposes durable UUID resume, structured streams, hooks, Agent View, and interrupt primitives, but their semantics differ from Codex and individual hook callbacks are not trustworthy receipts.
What changed
spikes/claude/No production Claude adapter, provider flag, migration, queue behavior, mesh/gateway, release, or publish implementation is included.
Key decisions
--session-id/--resume --printprocess per messageTracker
Validation
just check: Ruff, format, strict mypy, 692 tests passed (17 deselected), wheel/sdist build, package-content validationRisks and rollout
This PR changes research and architecture guidance only. The principal implementation risks—wrong-provider routing, false receipts, duplicate sends, stale hooks, raw-content retention, and signalling the wrong process—are converted into explicit DIS-50 acceptance criteria and disabled-by-default rollout gates.