mirror of
https://github.com/alexbelgium/hassio-addons.git
synced 2026-09-02 23:33:35 +02:00
d9b92f4e70
The full loop ran simplify (step 5) before Codex's code review (step 6) and never again, so nothing walked back what the review added. Adversarial review is asked to find what could go wrong, so its output is a list of arguments for more code and it is never asked whether the branch it wants is reachable — accepting objections only ratchets the diff upward. Step 6 now ends by re-running step 5's checks over the hunks the review touched. The other half was earlier than the review. The standing rule already said complexity is bought only by a measurement, but it said it about performance, so a branch added for robustness did not visibly fall under it. It now covers hypothetical hosts as well as hypothetical performance: name the input that reaches a defensive branch and the image it happens on, or delete it and let the case fail visibly. Step 3's attack-your-own-plan list asks the same question before any code exists, which is where it is cheapest to answer. The case study in references/simplify.md is #3013: 25 lines of code at review, 10 merged. A pure-bash fallback written at implement time for images shipping with-contenv but not s6-dumpenv — reasoned from the two binaries living in different s6 packages, never demonstrated on a real image, and defending a case that would have degraded to the pre-fix behaviour anyway — plus the helper function and second reset that existed only to serve it. Deleting the fallback deleted all of it. The review's own objections were correct and cost two tokens on an existing line. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>