chore: Update CODEOWNERS

[flashinfer-bot]

Summary

This PR updates the CODEOWNERS file based on git commit history analysis from the last 180 days.

Changes

• Updated .github/CODEOWNERS with current code ownership based on:
  • Commit frequency
  • File coverage
  • Commit recency

How to Review

1. Review the changes to .github/CODEOWNERS
2. Verify that the assigned owners are appropriate for each module
3. Make manual adjustments if needed before merging

Notes

• This is an automated PR generated weekly
• Minimum commits threshold: 1
• Analysis period: 180 days
• Directory depth: 3 levels
• Top N owners per module: 5

---

🤖 This PR was automatically generated by the update-codeowners workflow

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Internal administrative updates with no user-facing impact.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @flashinfer-bot, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request automates the maintenance of the .github/CODEOWNERS file by updating it based on a recent analysis of commit history. This ensures that code ownership accurately reflects current contributions and activity, streamlining future review processes and maintaining clear accountability for different parts of the codebase.

Highlights

• CODEOWNERS Update: The .github/CODEOWNERS file has been updated to reflect current code ownership based on a recent analysis of commit history over the last 180 days.
• Automated Reordering: Specifically, the owners for the scripts/ directory were reordered based on the automated analysis, with no actual changes to the set of assigned owners, only their sequence.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The CODEOWNERS file is updated to reorder the owner assignments for the scripts/ path. The same set of owners is maintained; only their sequence is changed. No functional modifications to the codebase occur.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
CODEOWNERS Maintenance \.github/CODEOWNERS	Reordered owner assignments for scripts/ path; owners remain unchanged, only sequence modified

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Suggested reviewers

• yzh119
• nvmbreughe

Poem

🐰 The CODEOWNERS, they shuffled about,
A new order emerges, without any doubt,
Same guardians stand, just rearranged with care,
Scripts folder's keepers now in different air! ✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description Check	⚠️ Warning	The PR description deviates from the required template structure. While the description provides useful context about the automated update, commit history analysis parameters, and review instructions, it lacks the required sections specified in the template, particularly the "Pull Request Checklist" with pre-commit checks and tests subsections, the "Related Issues" section, and the structured format with the template's specified section headings. The description content is clear and on-topic, but the structural non-compliance with the template is significant.	The PR description should be reformatted to follow the repository's pull request template. Include the "Description" section with a brief explanation of changes, add a "Related Issues" section (if applicable), complete the "Pull Request Checklist" with the pre-commit checks and tests checkboxes, and optionally include "Reviewer Notes." The existing content can be incorporated into these template sections while maintaining the helpful context already provided.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title Check	✅ Passed	The PR title "chore: Update CODEOWNERS" directly corresponds to the changeset, which modifies the .github/CODEOWNERS file. While the title doesn't specify the granular details (such as reordering owners for the scripts/ path), it is sufficiently specific and accurately describes the primary action being performed. The title follows conventional commit conventions and clearly communicates the nature of the change to anyone reviewing the repository history.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch auto-update-codeowners

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This automated PR updates the .github/CODEOWNERS file. The change correctly reorders owners for the scripts/ path based on the analysis script. While reviewing the context, I noticed that the generation script has a flaw that can lead to duplicate owners, as seen on line 41 of the file. I have added a comment with details on the issue and a recommendation for fixing the script to improve future updates. The change in this PR itself is acceptable.

[gemini-code-assist]

While this line has been updated correctly by the automation, the script that generates the CODEOWNERS file (scripts/codeowner_analyzer.py) appears to have a bug that can lead to duplicate entries. For instance, line 41 in this file lists @aleozlx twice.

This likely occurs because the generation script does not deduplicate the list of owners, which can happen if a single person contributes with multiple emails that resolve to the same GitHub username.

To prevent this in the future, the script should be updated to ensure the list of owners for any given path is unique. Using a set to collect the usernames before joining them into a string would be an effective solution.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8ffab81 and 4446fc8.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/CODEOWNERS (1 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Deploy Docs

[coderabbitai]

⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 Critical

🧩 Analysis chain

CODEOWNERS update for scripts/ path looks good.

The reordering of owners on line 43 reflects the commit activity analysis (frequency, coverage, and recency) from the 180-day git history window, which is the expected behavior from the automated workflow. All five owners remain assigned; only their sequence has changed based on contribution metrics.

If you'd like, you can verify that the new owner order aligns with actual commit contributions by inspecting the git history:

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify commit frequency for each owner in the scripts/ directory over the last 180 days

DAYS=180
DATE_SINCE=$(date -d "$DAYS days ago" +%Y-%m-%d)

echo "Commit frequency by author in scripts/ over the last $DAYS days (since $DATE_SINCE):"
git log --since="$DATE_SINCE" --pretty=format:"%an" -- scripts/ | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn

Length of output: 301

---

CODEOWNERS ordering for scripts/ does not match commit frequency—@yongwww and @dierksen are swapped.

The git log shows @yongwww with 5 commits and @dierksen with 2 commits over the past 180 days. The current line has @dierksen (position 3) ranked higher than @yongwww (position 4), which contradicts the stated contribution metrics.

Expected order: scripts/ @yzh119 @nvmbreughe @yongwww @dierksen @bkryu
Actual order: scripts/ @yzh119 @nvmbreughe @dierksen @yongwww @bkryu

Swap positions 3 and 4 to align with commit frequency.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

.github/CODEOWNERS around line 43: the owners list for scripts/ is ordered
incorrectly per commit frequency; swap the two handles so the line reads with
@yongwww before @dierksen. Edit the file to replace "scripts/ @yzh119
@nvmbreughe @dierksen @yongwww @bkryu" with "scripts/ @yzh119 @nvmbreughe
@yongwww @dierksen @bkryu" and commit the change.