Scoped review invitations and module stewardship

@now-ing

Scoped review and module stewardship

Governance, review routing and merge-gate changes were merged in
#4071. Scope confirmations
belong in this issue; code and workflow review belongs on that PR.

Thank you for the implementation, fixes and cross-author reviews that keep LoopX moving. We are making the first-review routes clearer so contributors can participate in technical decisions as well as implementation.

@now-ing: a repository Write invitation has been sent. Would you like to take an initial review scope in post-writeback hooks or periodic reporting? Please choose the cohesive scope you prefer; access acceptance and subsystem appointment are separate steps.
@Duang777: I am designating you as the first-review contact for Chat/runtime session lifecycle: resume/submit/close, request idempotency, focused regression coverage and follow-up maintenance. Shared goal/quota/lease policy is outside this scope. Please tell us if you want to narrow or pause this responsibility; this does not require fixed availability or grant new repository permissions.
@wchwawa: would you coordinate first implementation review for shared-goal-authority qualification, including writer/cursor recovery evidence? Canonical-authority promotion and provider activation remain separate maintainer decisions.
@liubf21: would you coordinate Usage and host-usage ingestion review, especially historical-data compatibility and measurement correctness?
@hhyykk and @yuefengw: would you take paired review scopes in TypeScript transaction cutovers and task-lease/scheduler boundaries respectively?
@wujc12: I am designating you as the first-review contact for DSH integration: the plugin, installation and host-integration regressions. Shared replan and lifecycle contracts remain separately reviewed. Please let us know your availability or any scope adjustment.
@songoow: would you take a bounded review scope in reliability diagnostics? Privacy/export decisions remain separately reviewed.
@steven-kid: the existing Lark Integration subsystem appointment remains in place; Lark PRs should continue to reach you for the first substantive review.

How this works

Please reply with your accepted scope, any narrower boundary, and realistic availability. Declining or pausing is completely fine. No employment, on-call duty or response-time SLA is implied.
Start with a real PR by another author. Record the exact head, the invariant you checked, validation actually performed, and any unresolved issue. Review comments are useful even before Write access; only eligible approvals satisfy GitHub's merge rules.
Authors should get the opportunity to address findings. If a maintainer takes over a repair, preserve attribution and explain the handoff.
Your own PRs still need another reviewer. Repository Write is not admin/bypass, release authority or blanket ownership of shared control-plane semantics.
After roughly four weeks of participation or three to five completed cross-author review cycles, we can confirm or adjust the scope in governance. Existing substantive reviews count; there is no PR-volume target or requirement to manufacture findings.

The lead maintainer remains the fallback for availability and cross-module decisions. Please keep scope confirmations here so they are easy to find; implementation discussion stays on the relevant PR.

@wujc12

DSH review routing update: @wujc12 is the first-review contact for the DSH plugin, installation and host-integration regressions. This replaces the earlier proposed DSH assignment; other contributors remain welcome to contribute and review. Shared lifecycle/replan changes still need the relevant maintainer review. The governance change is in #4071, and scope/availability feedback can stay here.

@huangruiteng

@huangruiteng Accepted, with the boundary below.

Scope I take: first implementation review for shared-goal-authority qualification: the stage ladder and its evidence rows, transaction-bound capture and drain, writer/cursor recovery, bounded qualification and rollback, and the provider conformance evidence that feeds them (file, PostgreSQL, NoKV). For each review I will record the exact head, the invariant checked, the validation actually run, and anything left unresolved.

Outside the scope: canonical-authority promotion, provider selection or activation, normative RFC changes, and anything that changes the authority source; those stay with the lead maintainer. On NoKV-provider PRs I review the LoopX-side qualification evidence only; NoKV-side decisions keep their own review in NoKV-Lab/NoKV, and the same LoopX acceptance gate applies to NoKV changes as to any other provider.

Availability: a few hours per week, usually a first substantive review within two working days of a request; no SLA implied, and I will say so on the PR when I cannot take one.

I will start with a cross-author PR in this scope, #4053, since it builds directly on the recovery boundaries of #3985.

@huangruiteng

@huangruiteng Accepted. I can serve as the first-review contact for Chat/runtime session lifecycle, covering resume, submit, close, request idempotency, focused regression coverage, and follow-up maintenance, with shared goal/quota/lease policy staying out of scope. My availability is best-effort without a fixed SLA; I will say on the PR when I need to pause or cannot take a review.

@huangruiteng

@huangruiteng Accepted. I can take a bounded first implementation review scope in reliability diagnostics: observer-envelope and ledger integrity, receipt/projection consistency, readback and time-evaluation correctness, and focused regressions that prove the diagnostics path remains read-only and does not influence scheduler inputs.

Privacy/export policy, retention/deletion authorization, provider activation, and shared Goal/quota/lease or lifecycle semantics remain separate maintainer reviews. DSH plugin, installation and host-integration reviews should continue through @wujc12; I will focus on the diagnostics contract at that boundary.

Availability is best-effort, with no fixed response-time SLA. I will state on the PR when I cannot take a review or need to pause. For cross-author reviews I will record the exact head, invariants checked, validation actually run, and unresolved findings. My own PRs, including #3975, still require another reviewer; author self-checks are not independent approval.

docs(governance): mark now-ing write access active

chore(governance): per-module CODEOWNERS, public review roster and re…

@hhyykk

Maintainer-authorized access and review-scope update (2026-10-10).

Organization Member invitations with repository Write through the new loopx-developers team have been sent to @hhyykk, @LIHUA919, @NIU-123370, @xyx2002OvO, @jackie-cqz, @Jim-jimu and @BigDataDZ. These grants take effect when each invitation is accepted. @maxliux5 has also received an organization Member invitation; existing Write access and frontend code-owner scope continue.

@mikamikasuki has received an external repository Write invitation for an initial four-week collaboration period. We will review the arrangement around 2026-11-07, considering review responses, regression follow-up and sustainable availability. GitHub Write does not expire automatically; this is a review date. Organization membership can follow an explicit scope/availability confirmation and that review.

Please reply here with the scope you want and realistic availability; declining, narrowing or pausing is welcome:

@cocolord: would you take first review for a cohesive quota-admission and action-projection scope? Shared goal authority, provider activation and release policy remain separately reviewed. Your substantive cross-author reviews are useful evidence; we should map qualifying reviews to the scope you accept before proposing any code-owner route.
@now-ing: please choose post-writeback hooks or periodic reporting as one initial scope. Please record future conclusions as GitHub reviews with the exact head, invariant, validation performed and unresolved findings.
@yuefengw and @xiaods: would you like to continue contributing with organization Member + repository Write? For @yuefengw, the proposed task-lease/scheduler review scope remains open to adjustment. We will send the invitations after you confirm continued interest.
@karenchuu, @kokokoXUY, @YZJF and @zyaiire: would you like to join the organization as community Members? Membership would not automatically grant Write; a sustained implementation/review scope can support a later Write proposal.
@AronSwan and @JunZ-Leo: would you like repository Triage to help with reproduction, duplicate detection and issue labels? We will grant it after you accept that responsibility.
@liubf21 and @wujc12: please confirm or adjust the proposed Usage/host-usage ingestion and DSH integration review scopes respectively.
@liuyizhe, @JackyCSer, @ZaynJarvis, @Hoey041 and @Wanli-Lee: please let us know which responsibilities you want to continue, narrow or pause. Existing Write is retained; recent activity alone is not a reason to revoke access.

@Duang777 and @songoow already have active Write; their accepted Chat/runtime and reliability scopes continue, as does @wchwawa's accepted authority-qualification scope. @steven-kid's Lark appointment continues.

No new code-owner, Maintain, Admin or organization Owner appointment is being made in this rollout. Code-owner proposals still require accepted cohesive scope and at least three substantive in-scope cross-author reviews in the preceding eight weeks. Authored PR totals, author self-checks and unsupported automatic approvals do not establish that qualification. Existing substantive comments can supply technical evidence; only eligible GitHub approvals satisfy merge rules.

Write enables contribution through protected pull requests. Release, security, repository-settings and bypass decisions require lead-maintainer authorization. The lead maintainer has retained the existing automation permissions of @loopx-agent and authorized it to operate the protected formal release tags alongside @huangruiteng. This rollout adds no human approval gate to publication workflows. Contributor invitations do not grant that automation delegation. Silence is not acceptance.

@loopx-agent

@loopx-agent @huangruiteng Accepted — I take the repository Triage responsibility as scoped: reproduction, duplicate detection, and issue labels.

How I will work: my recent filings (#5462, #5592, #5885, #5886) already follow a repro-first pattern, and I will keep the same evidence discipline in Triage — exact head, reproduction actually run, validation performed, and unresolved findings stated. When confirming reports I reproduce against canonical main before labeling; duplicate detection will reference the canonical issue explicitly.

Availability: best-effort, no fixed SLA; I will say so when I need to pause. No review-scope or Write ambitions implied by this acceptance — Triage only, as offered.

Please grant the permission when convenient.

@loopx-agent

@loopx-agent @huangruiteng — following up on our acceptance with four items:

Recusal set (evidence-only, no labeling from us): threads we authored or filed (fix(tests): keep the single-owner scheme-list sentinel green on Windows #5356, Windows lock-holder sidecar left by killed processes crashes peers.returns() and inbox.pending() JSON scans #5397, Developer ergonomics: three undocumented silent-failure contracts in ChatSessionStore / drain (repro + production incidents) #5462, Windows: peers.py inbox read crashes on os.O_NONBLOCK (bare use; defensive getattr form already used elsewhere) — and the read receipt is persisted before the crash #5511, source_context_authority rejects source_session_v1 profile after #5522 — 46 exact-path tests red on main #5592, turn run-once: quota_spend CAS failure leaves turn permanently in_progress (completed work unauditable) #5885, Long-running goals: zero mid-run progress events (milestone RFC not landed); operator blind for the entire run #5886; deepseek-harness discussion 9084); threads deriving from our PR fix(chat): surface silent contract failures in session store and delivery #5554; and — during the Write trial review period ending around 2026-11-07 — threads authored by mikamikasuki, whose recent implementations (fix(collaboration): allow exact source-session context grants #5595, feat(turns): watch persisted journal progress #5998) built on our diagnoses. The same evidence-only stance applies to surfaces adjacent to fixes other contributors are actively driving.
How we read the lane: reproduction and duplicate detection, with evidence posted in comments; lifecycle labels (duplicate/question/invalid/wontfix) stay with maintainers per docs/operations/pr-issue-labels.md — we will suggest, not apply.
Environment boundary: our repro environment is Windows + Python 3.14, editable install of canonical main with test extras (verified 2026-10-11 at 8d5a6fc17: tests/test_file_lock.py 20 passed, 3 skipped). TypeScript control-plane surfaces are outside our repro capability; on those we will do code-level review only, and a bare "cannot reproduce" from us should always be read as "outside our repro coverage" — we will say which.
Prior-knowledge disclosure: on 2026-10-04 we diagnosed the lock-holder sidecar × *.json glob interaction — the family filed as [Bug]: ephemeral lock holder sidecars race directory walks and match *.json globs, causing Windows-only test flakes #6128 — and deferred a small fix PR until after fix(chat): surface silent contract failures in session store and delivery #5554 merged, then failed to follow up. Our miss. We have posted post-fix verification on [Bug]: ephemeral lock holder sidecars race directory walks and match *.json globs, causing Windows-only test flakes #6128.

On rhythm: we will keep our triage work visible on a weekly cadence — actions taken, or an explicit note when there was nothing to do — and any pause will be announced in this issue.

Thanks for the invitation! I'd be happy to join as a community member. I'm a full-time student, so realistically ~3–5 hrs/week.

@loopx-agent

@loopx-agent @huangruiteng Accepted — confirming the repository Write invitation via loopx-developers, with a bounded, best-effort first-review scope:

Scope I take: Windows-runtime correctness in the Python CLI and its test harness — path/encoding issues (non-ASCII paths, reserved names), filesystem side effects, and repro-first validation on native Windows (exact head, commands actually run, evidence attached). This is the area of my previous contributions here (#4397, and the reviews of #5978/#5966).

Outside the scope: scheduler/lifecycle semantics, shared goal/quota/lease policy, and canonical-authority or provider-selection decisions.

Recusal (evidence-only, no review verdicts): threads where I am the author or a party — my PR #4397, my reviews of #5978/#5966, and #5895 if I end up picking up the GH-C88 implementation.

Availability: best-effort, no fixed SLA; I will say so on the PR when I need to pause or hand a review back. Happy to narrow or adjust this scope anytime.

@JasonBuildAI

Maintainer-authorized contributor access and review-routing follow-up (2026-10-22). Thank you for the implementation, review, regression recovery and platform qualification work across LoopX.

Invitations and accepted responsibilities

@JasonBuildAI: organization Member + repository Write through loopx-developers is invited. Your desktop update, runtime recovery and CI follow-through are appreciated. Please choose a cohesive first-review scope, such as desktop delivery or runtime recovery, and realistic availability.
@LIHUA919 and @jackie-cqz: your earlier invitations expired; fresh Member + Write-team invitations have been sent. Thank you for the Goal/workspace, recovery, integration and platform fixes. Please confirm whether you want an ongoing review scope, and which boundary fits.
@hhyykk: existing direct Write remains active and yesterday's organization Member invitation is reused. Would you take paired first review for TypeScript transaction cutovers, complete-result parity and measured read-path performance? You can narrow the scope or decline; implementation output is not an implied review commitment.
@AronSwan: your accepted Triage scope and stated recusal/environment boundaries are recorded. The repository Triage invitation has now been sent. Reproduction, duplicate detection and permitted labels are the scope; lifecycle-label decisions stay with maintainers under the existing policy.
@YZJF: the Member-only organization invitation has been sent following your acceptance. It carries no repository Write or extra maintenance commitment.

Invitations take effect only after each contributor accepts them through GitHub notifications. Pending delivery is not active access. If an invitation is missing, please reply here so it can be reconciled rather than duplicated.

Bounded ownership and next review scopes

@BigDataDZ: your already-accepted Windows runtime/test-harness responsibility and native cross-author validation support a bounded code-owner route for loopx/windows_install.py, scripts/install-windows.ps1, tests/test_windows_install.py and tests/test_windows_atomic_writes.py. PR #7080 records the appointment and evidence; routing takes effect only after it reaches main. Existing owners remain on all four paths. Shared lifecycle/quota/authority, CI and release policy stay outside this route; best-effort availability and your recusals continue.
@Duang777: your Chat/runtime ownership and recent cross-author Host/recovery reviews are valuable. With the existing Write role, would you like a broader but cohesive review remit around session/Host recovery, or prefer to retain the current Chat boundary? No repository Maintain change is being made.
@cocolord: your substantive cross-author reviews, including installation performance and recovery boundaries, should be reflected in review routing. Is the proposed quota-admission/action-projection scope still a good fit, or would another cohesive scope and cadence suit you better? Existing reviews count as evidence; there is no need to manufacture PRs or findings.
@steven-kid: the Lark appointment continues. Thank you also for the Workspace navigation/history work. If you want a separate Workspace review scope, please say so; authored changes alone do not silently expand the Lark route.
@mikamikasuki: thank you for journal progress and recovery/platform repairs. The earlier external Write invitation is no longer pending and access has not become active. Would you like to continue the original bounded collaboration so we can reconcile a fresh invitation? The earlier review around 2026-11-07 was a manual checkpoint, not automatic expiry or an obligation to stay active.
@karenchuu and @kokokoXUY: the community Member invitation in this issue remains open for your confirmation, with no automatic Write grant. Thank you for the shared-contract, semantics and documentation maintenance.
@Twiink and @Zhouyang66639: welcome, and thank you for consolidating shared vocabulary and path/identifier ownership. If you want to continue, please choose a small maintenance or cross-author review scope from the existing contributor board, or propose one here; no role is implied by this welcome.

Please reply with the scope you accept and realistic availability. Narrowing, pausing or handing work back is welcome. Existing attribution and permissions are not withdrawn for silence or reduced activity. Work should close an actual gap; independent reproduction, useful review and regression follow-through count alongside features.

Governance readback

PR #7080 reconciles the stale access snapshot, accepted responsibilities and the existing Maintain-role PR-bypass description. This rollout adds no Maintain/Admin role and changes no team-repository grant or ruleset. Write, code ownership, maintainer responsibility and bypass remain separate.

中文简述：已补发三位贡献者的 Member＋Write 团队邀请、AronSwan 的 Triage 邀请和 YZJF 的普通 Member 邀请；复用 hhyykk 既有邀请。Windows CODEOWNER 路由通过 #7080 记录；尚未接受的职责只作邀请，不视为已经承诺。欢迎大家按自己的时间选择、缩小或暂缓范围。

@loopx-agent

@loopx-agent @huangruiteng Happy to broaden the remit.

Scope I take: first-review contact for a cohesive session/Host recovery boundary — Chat/runtime session lifecycle (resume/submit/close, request idempotency, focused regression coverage and follow-up maintenance), plus Host/recovery surfaces that stay inside that same cohesion. Shared goal/quota/lease policy, canonical-authority promotion, provider activation, and release/bypass decisions stay outside this scope.

Availability: best-effort, no fixed SLA; I will say on the PR when I need to pause or cannot take a review. No Maintain or code-owner change requested.

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Scoped review invitations and module stewardship #4069

Scoped review and module stewardship

How this works

Invitations and accepted responsibilities

Bounded ownership and next review scopes

Governance readback

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Scoped review invitations and module stewardship #4069

Description

Scoped review and module stewardship

How this works

Activity

huangruiteng commented on Sep 7, 2026

wchwawa commented on Sep 8, 2026

Duang777 commented on Sep 8, 2026

songoow commented on Sep 9, 2026

loopx-agent commented on Oct 9, 2026

AronSwan commented on Oct 10, 2026

AronSwan commented on Oct 11, 2026

YZJF commented on Oct 12, 2026

BigDataDZ commented on Oct 12, 2026

loopx-agent commented on Oct 22, 2026

Invitations and accepted responsibilities

Bounded ownership and next review scopes

Governance readback

Duang777 commented on Oct 24, 2026

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions