Mike Sync v2 review - #123
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Automated-Upstream-Mike-Sync: true
Summary
Reviewed all five upstream PRs in order against current ROSS main. No candidate is safely implementation-eligible; the working tree remains unchanged.
Capability classifications
router-aware-assistant-workflows— The useful routing, input, and version-panel capabilities are inseparable from provider keys, schemas, APIs, deployment, and data-boundary changes protected from automatic adoption.repository-guide-organization— ROSS already has a repository-specific README, documentation map, local-development guidance, verification instructions, and governed deployment and release runbooks; Mike-specific and Word-add-in guidance is not applicable.model-router-hardening— The hardening is valuable only with feat: expand model routing and assistant input workflows open-legal-products/mike#350’s router architecture and changes authorization-like model controls, provider-key use, migrations, and database behavior.ask-input-submit-integrity— ROSS has a native ask-input seam and could benefit from consistent answer caps and failed-submit recovery, but its request architecture differs and lacks the focused regression coverage needed before changing API behavior.version-panel-resilience— ROSS lacks the upstream version-resolution seam, and silently replacing a cited deleted version with current bytes presents a product and legal-source integrity judgment.Safety
Mike Sync v2 applies at most one low-risk implementation candidate per branch. Exact-head Baseline, bounded repair, review, mergeability, and release controls remain authoritative.