steveandClaude Opus 5
2367e696b5
Build & push image / build-and-push (pull_request) Successful in 3s
The pre-flight comment was the worst of them, and three models agreed. It said providers absent from the table "need no key or carry it in their endpoint/DSN" — false for google, which needs a key and is absent for an entirely different reason: it accepts GOOGLE_API_KEY *or* GEMINI_API_KEY, so a single-variable arm would silently skip a correctly-configured reviewer. That reasoning was in the PR description and not in the code, so the comment invited exactly the wrong edit. It now states both exclusion reasons and names google's. Forwarded KIMI_API_KEY alongside QWEN_API_KEY in the dogfooding stub. This PR argues that sibling call sites must move together, and I declared both secrets in the reusable workflow and forwarded one — a config that looks complete and 401s on the model you didn't wire. The two endpoint-provider error messages listed the same accepted set in different order and spelling. Both functions accept an identical set, so they now share one endpointProviderNames constant and cannot disagree. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>