@rallycry/conveyor-agent 10.13.14 → 10.13.15

package/dist/{chunk-J4UH5TOO.js → chunk-SAHOFQBQ.js}

@@ -965,15 +965,6 @@ var AgentConnection = class _AgentConnection {
   updateStatus(status) {
     this.emitStatus(status);
   }
-  emitCodeReviewResult(content, approved) {
-    if (!this.socket) return;
-    void this.call("submitCodeReviewResult", {
-      sessionId: this.config.sessionId,
-      content,
-      approved
-    }).catch(() => {
-    });
-  }
   /**
    * The session's key hit a hard usage cap — ask the server to stamp it
    * limited and hand back the best remaining key's credential env (or a
@@ -2049,9 +2040,10 @@ var SubmitCodeReviewResultRequestSchema = z3.object({
   sessionId: z3.string(),
   approved: z3.boolean(),
   content: z3.string(),
-  // Canonical risk derived by the reviewer (approve → low; changes → max issue
-  // severity). Applied raise-only server-side; never lowers an explicit value.
-  risk: riskLevelSchema.optional(),
+  // Canonical risk level the reviewer assigned to this change. Required on every
+  // verdict — the reviewer must judge it. Applied authoritatively server-side
+  // (may raise OR lower an already-set value; the reviewer has that authority).
+  risk: riskLevelSchema,
   // The commit SHA the reviewer actually reviewed. When present, the verdict is
   // rejected unless the task is still at this SHA (guards against a late
   // old-SHA verdict overwriting a newer review cycle).
@@ -2432,6 +2424,7 @@ var ListMyLiveSessionsRequestSchema = z4.object({
 var ListProjectSessionGroupsRequestSchema = z4.object({
   projectId: z4.string()
 });
+var ListMyLiveSessionsAcrossProjectsRequestSchema = z4.object({});
 var GetProjectAvailableTuisRequestSchema = z4.object({
   projectId: z4.string()
 });
@@ -6529,6 +6522,14 @@ function buildReviewPrompt(context) {
       `- Explain what's wrong and suggest fixes`,
       `- Focus on substantive issues, not style nitpicks (linting handles that)`,
       ``,
+      `#### Risk level (required on BOTH tools):`,
+      `Every verdict MUST include a \`risk\` level \u2014 judge it by the surface area the change touches:`,
+      `- \`critical\`: touches critical/foundational surface (auth, billing, data integrity, migrations)`,
+      `- \`high\`: touches important surface with broad blast radius`,
+      `- \`medium\`: moderate, contained surface area`,
+      `- \`low\`: small or isolated change`,
+      `The task may already have a risk level set. If your review makes you disagree with it, set the level you believe is correct \u2014 you have the authority to override it in either direction.`,
+      ``,
       `### Previous Review Feedback`,
       `If previous review feedback is present in the chat history, verify those specific issues were addressed before raising new concerns.`,
       ``,
@@ -8279,20 +8280,18 @@ async function endReviewSession(connection, reason) {
     reason
   });
 }
-function riskFromIssues(issues) {
-  if (issues.some((i) => i.severity === "critical")) return "critical";
-  if (issues.some((i) => i.severity === "major")) return "high";
-  return "medium";
-}
+var RISK_LEVELS2 = ["critical", "high", "medium", "low"];
+var riskDescription = "REQUIRED. The risk level this change carries, judged by the surface area it touches: critical = touches critical/foundational surface, high = important surface, medium = moderate, low = small/isolated. Set this on every verdict. You have authority to override a risk level already set on the task if you disagree with it.";
 function buildCodeReviewTools(connection) {
   return [
     defineTool(
       "approve_code_review",
-      "Approve the code review and exit. Use when the diff passes all review criteria. Takes only a summary \u2014 for changes, use request_code_changes with a structured issues[] list.",
+      "Approve the code review and exit. Use when the diff passes all review criteria. Requires a summary and a risk level \u2014 for changes, use request_code_changes with a structured issues[] list.",
       {
-        summary: z14.string().describe("Brief summary of what was reviewed and why it looks good")
+        summary: z14.string().describe("Brief summary of what was reviewed and why it looks good"),
+        risk: z14.enum(RISK_LEVELS2).describe(riskDescription)
       },
-      async ({ summary }) => {
+      async ({ summary, risk }) => {
         const content = `**Code Review: Approved** :white_check_mark:
 
 ${summary}`;
@@ -8300,7 +8299,7 @@ ${summary}`;
           sessionId: connection.sessionId,
           approved: true,
           content,
-          risk: "low"
+          risk
         });
         connection.sendEvent({
           type: "code_review_complete",
@@ -8323,9 +8322,10 @@ ${summary}`;
             description: z14.string().describe("What is wrong and how to fix it")
           })
         ).describe("List of issues found during review"),
-        summary: z14.string().describe("Brief overall summary of the review findings")
+        summary: z14.string().describe("Brief overall summary of the review findings"),
+        risk: z14.enum(RISK_LEVELS2).describe(riskDescription)
       },
-      async ({ issues, summary }) => {
+      async ({ issues, summary, risk }) => {
         const issueLines = issues.map((issue) => {
           const loc = issue.line ? `:${issue.line}` : "";
           return `- **[${issue.severity}]** \`${issue.file}${loc}\`: ${issue.description}`;
@@ -8339,7 +8339,7 @@ ${issueLines}`;
           sessionId: connection.sessionId,
           approved: false,
           content,
-          risk: riskFromIssues(issues)
+          risk
         });
         connection.sendEvent({
           type: "code_review_complete",
@@ -11853,4 +11853,4 @@ export {
   loadConveyorConfig,
   unshallowRepo
 };
-//# sourceMappingURL=chunk-J4UH5TOO.js.map
+//# sourceMappingURL=chunk-SAHOFQBQ.js.map