Address fourth round of Gadfly findings on #76

- Split hexCenters' doc: the count/limit contract had run straight on from the #75 anti-regression paragraph with no separator, so its opening "It" read as referring to the wrong thing. - Write the stagger as pitch/2 rather than radius. Same value, but the intent is "half a pitch" and only incidentally "one radius". - fitAxis's step<=0 guard is unreachable from its only caller. Kept, and now says so: a helper this small shouldn't need its caller read to be shown safe, and the failure mode without it is ±Inf into an int conversion. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01H3zbym8Doka2d7D48maSgZ
2026-07-21 14:03:41 -04:00
parent 28af101634
commit 958b90ebc6
2 changed files with 18 additions and 8 deletions
@@ -140,9 +140,10 @@ was the one that contained a real bug.
 **A skipped Gadfly run reports success.** A comment without the trigger phrase
 still starts the workflow, which logs `comment does not contain trigger phrase`
 and exits green in ~2 seconds. So "the pipeline is green" does NOT mean "this
-was reviewed". Confirm a re-review actually ran by checking that it posted a new
-consensus comment — or that the run took minutes rather than seconds — not by
-its status.
+was reviewed". Confirm a re-review actually ran by its **duration** — a real
+pass takes ~10 minutes, a skip takes 2 seconds. Don't look for a new consensus
+comment: Gadfly EDITS its existing status-board and consensus comments in place,
+so their `created_at` stays at the first review and only `updated_at` moves.

 Workflow- and config-only changes (CI, this file, docs) go straight to `main`
 without the PR dance.