PR #8525
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The comment points out spotless violations and explicitly instructs running `./gradlew spotlessApply`, so the PR author needs to make the code-formatting change.)
route: author
PR #8524
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8522
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8521
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8520
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8519
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8499
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=1
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8492
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=3
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8489
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8481
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The author says the dependency was unblocked by merging the spec PR and explicitly declines to address the side note in this PR, so there’s no remaining action in this thread.)
route: approver
PR #8480
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The author answered the reviewer’s question and acknowledged the tradeoff, so the thread is back on the reviewer/maintainer to decide whether to keep or change the proposed behavior.)
route: maintainer
PR #8473
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8468
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=11
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86ImrO2 -> author (The approver asked for a code change that is still not addressed: remove `seenWhitespace` logic and update the whitespace test. The PR author needs to implement that fix.)
route: author
PR #8467
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=12
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for motivation, and the author answered by linking it to #8198 and explaining the change, so the thread is back with the reviewer for follow-up or approval.)
route: approver
PR #8464
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=5
threads: author=10 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=1
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3mmm -> unclear (The only comment is an ambiguous reviewer "???" with no explicit request or decision, so the needed follow-up cannot be determined from the thread alone.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3oqd -> author (The approver suggested a code change (`addEntity(Entity e)`), so the PR author needs to implement or respond to that feedback.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3o9g -> author (The approver requested a code change (“Omit this sugar to start.”), so the PR author needs to update the implementation and reply.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3qPO -> author (The approver asked a direct design question about moving computation to initialization time, so the author needs to जवाब/adjust the implementation.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3qb_ -> author (The approver’s only comment is a question/ask for clarification, so the next step is for the PR author to respond or adjust the code.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3thx -> author (The approver pointed out a code change is needed here by suggesting removal of the unnecessary `public` on the interface static method, so the PR author needs to update the file.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3uKP -> author (The approver asked for a code/doc change: rename the methods to `set<Property>` and clarify the javadoc semantics, so the PR author needs to update the implementation.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3wYO -> author (An approver left an inline code suggestion (`builder(String entityType)`), so the author needs to apply or address that change before the thread can move forward.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3wgW -> author (The approver left a concrete code suggestion (`static Entity create(`) on an unresolved line, so the PR author needs to apply or consider the change.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86KXDhc -> author (The approver asked an open design question about why a new `EntityDetector` SPI is needed instead of reusing `ResourceProvider`, so the PR author needs to जवाब/justify or adjust the design.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86KXHEj -> author (The approver is giving implementation guidance on where the toggle should live, and the thread is still unresolved. That implies the PR author needs to adjust the code or respond to the assumption.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86KXMcg -> none (The reviewer is providing explanatory context and concludes that nothing needs to change in ResourceFactory, with no explicit follow-up requested.)
route: author
PR #8450
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The author only reported restoring the branch; no question, request, or required follow-up is stated in the thread.)
route: maintainer
PR #8446
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=6
threads: author=2 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86KBUh4 -> author (The approver asked a direct design question (“Why two methods?”), so the author needs to जवाब/adjust the implementation.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86KBWSq -> author (The approver left a nit suggesting a code change to use `CompletableResultCode.ofExceptionalFailure(...)`, so the PR author is the one who would act next.)
route: author
PR #8428
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=10
threads: author=2 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86FNGwS -> author (An approver asked a direct question about the chosen number, so the PR author needs to explain or adjust it.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86JKWNr -> author (An approver asked whether the test can be simplified to a null-body response, so the author needs to respond or adjust the test.)
route: author
PR #8407
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=35
threads: author=1 reviewer=2 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMfQS -> reviewer (The reviewer requested an explanatory comment, and the author replied that they added it in a follow-up commit; the thread is now back in reviewer court to confirm the change.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMnfF -> reviewer (The reviewer asked why the type changed to `Object`, and the author replied with an explanation; the thread is now back in the reviewer’s court to accept the answer or continue the discussion.)
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The latest comment is a reviewer asking the author to justify whether reflection is necessary and suggesting an alternative (`@CompileStatic`), so the author needs to respond or update the PR.)
route: author
PR #8364
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=39
threads: author=3 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhQsA -> author (The latest comment is a reviewer request to add an explanatory comment and rework the implementation to avoid the extra allocation by using a collision-first strategy, so the PR author needs to update the code.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhVsZ -> author (The approver pointed out an additional required fix: collision handling must also include normalized labels from resource, scope, and additionalAttributes, so the author needs to update the implementation.)
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The latest comment is from the PR author promising to make the requested changes, rebase after #8346 lands, and re-request review, so the next step is on the author.)
route: author
PR #8349
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The latest comment is from the author responding to review feedback and explicitly asks a question about whether `sampledThread` can be null, so the reviewer needs to answer before the thread can move forward.)
route: approver
PR #8240
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=61
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The latest comment is from the author, and they said they will investigate why the benchmark metrics are zero. The next step is on Khepu to do that work and report back.)
route: author
PR #8197
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=68
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The reviewer said the PR can stay as a reference while the spec discussion happens, and the author’s last comment just points to the external specification issue. The thread is effectively waiting on that outside-repository discussion, not on a repo follow-up.)
route: external
PR #8164
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=34
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85z-n0C -> author (A reviewer suggested changing the config key to add guardrails, and another approver agreed with the convention; the remaining step is for the PR author to implement that change.)
route: author
PR #8076
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=6
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The latest comment is from the author saying they’ll test and validate the implementation; the reviewer has already answered the question and is waiting on the author’s follow-up.)
route: author
PR #7763
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=236
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The author answered the reviewer’s question, so the next step is for the reviewer/approver to decide whether the explanation is sufficient and continue review.)
route: approver
PR #7741
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=81
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The last comment is just an informational pointer to an external bridge project with no requested change or reply needed in-repo.)
route: approver
Note
Open PRs are grouped by deterministic routing over per-thread LLM classifications. CI, conflicts, and activity age are computed deterministically and are shown as facts, not used as standalone routing reasons.
Waiting on maintainer (approved)
Waiting on approvers
Waiting on authors
Waiting on external
Workflow failure tracking issues
Diagnostics
Generated 2026-06-23 13:08 UTC