Repository navigation
Port scripts/gen_w320.py (Python, 3 functions) to specs/port/scripts/gen_w320.t27 - #7154
Conversation
The turn ended with these files edited and never committed. Uncommitted work is invisible to the review - it reads the branch - so the attempt would have been released as empty and the next bee would have started beside this work rather than from it. This commit is not a claim that the work is correct. It is the bee's work, committed on its behalf, and it is judged exactly like any other: the adversarial reviewer reads it, the compiler runs on it, and the issue's own criteria are measured against it. Issue: #5477 Turn: 0634893d-d5c7-4d93-8ded-361f2f71ec6d Ending: finished (the turn closed) Committed: 1 path(s) Left uncommitted: 0 path(s) outside the declared boundary
A pull request must add exactly one docs/now entry and a bee has no way to know that: its brief names a boundary file and acceptance criteria, and docs/now/ is neither. The publisher adds it rather than failing the gate. Closes #5477 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
![t27-bees[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/6774813?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewer bee verdict for head 93b88d53f118e23a7de67df508e304c444a95164 (tools/bees/reviewer.py, zai glm-4.7-flash, 4 turns, 342 s; then glm-4.5-flash, 10 turns, 95 s).
BEE-VERDICT: REQUEST_CHANGES
summary: The port implements stub functions that don't capture the original Python logic
criterion: "carrying the original's decisions as code" -- unmet -- The functions return null/unchanged input instead of implementing the parsing and text transformation logic
discounted-check: Check L1 TRACEABILITY -- About commit message formatting, unrelated to port functionality
discounted-check: Corpus ratchet (expected-failure ledger) -- Already red on master for the same reason
discounted-check: spec-guards -- About figure drift measurements, unrelated to port functionality
discounted-check: t27b-native-ratchet -- Already red on master for the same reason
blocking-check: Functional correctness -- The port doesn't implement the original decision logic
Evidence
The first review (glm-4.7-flash) approved this head. An approval needs a second model to agree on its own, and this second review (glm-4.5-flash) did not.
2 participants
Closes #5477
Written by a bee on
queen-5477and published bytools/queen/publish.py. The branch itself is the bee's; the second commit is the coordination entry every pull request must add, which a bee has no way to know about.🤖 Generated with Claude Code