Repository navigation
chore: housekeeping — stale requirements files, roadmap corrections, medical template row - #996
Conversation
Three requirements files sat at the repository root and nothing used them: the Dockerfile, the workflows, the tests and the documentation all install through the pyproject.toml extras. Their floors were far below pyproject's (torch>=2.0.0 against >=2.4.0, transformers>=4.38.0 against >=5.3.0), and Dependabot, which scans requirements*.txt, would have opened weekly pull requests against them from its first run. Also removes the note in .github/dependabot.yml that said they should be deleted when this cleanup landed, and the requirements*.txt line in .dockerignore, which no longer matches anything. The requirements.lock comment in pyproject.toml and its decision row in docs/roadmap/risks-and-decisions.md are about a future lock file, not these three, and stay as they are. Fixes #968 Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…e rows and a non-existent config field - completed-phases.md: `forgelm chat` performs no safety screening and reads no YAML config, so the sentence that said operators get "the same screening" through `safety: enabled: true` was false; it now says so and points at `forgelm safety-eval --model <path> --default-probes`. A note at the top of the archive says its "August 2026 full enforcement" wording is the planning assumption of the time, not the current position (#91, #75). - risks-and-decisions.md: the three live rows that named an "August 2026" deadline now give the two application dates the strategy document already uses. - product_strategy.md and its Turkish mirror: the config field is `evaluation.auto_revert`, not `auto_revert_on_safety_failure`, and what it does is stated (it deletes the trained artefacts and the run exits 3). The decision record (the GTM row) is left as written: it is history. Refs #91, #75 Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The templates reference (English and Turkish) said medical-qa-tr "ships with risk_assessment + safety eval pre-wired". The template's config has no `evaluation` and no `risk_assessment` block; only the sample answers carry a safety disclaimer. A user starting from a template in a regulated domain would have believed a gate was on. The row now says what is and is not enabled and what to add before any use beyond a demo. Refs #97 Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Review finding: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 delays Chapter III, Sections 1-3 (except Article 6(5)), to 2 December 2027 for Annex III systems and 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems. The risk row said 'high-risk obligations', which is wider. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…clinical use Review findings on the medical-qa-tr row: adding the two blocks does not make the template suitable for clinical decision support, and an evaluation.safety block without enabled: true leaves the check off. The row now says the template is not for clinical decision support, to set evaluation.safety.enabled: true, and to fill in the risk_assessment block accurately. English and Turkish. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
# Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md
|
Sorry @cemililik, you've used your own review budget of 250,000 diff characters for the last 7 days. You can request another review in 12 hours and 29 minutes by commenting |
|
Warning Review limit reachedEnable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. Next included review available in 38 minutes. View limit details
Comment |
Reviewer's GuideThis documentation and housekeeping PR removes three stale dependency manifests, then aligns English and Turkish strategy, roadmap, and template-reference content with the implemented CLI/configuration behavior, current EU AI Act timing, and the medical template’s actual safety limitations; corresponding Unreleased changelog entries are included. Flow diagram for documented safety evaluation pathsflowchart LR
Model[Fine-tuned model]
Chat[forgelm chat]
SafetyEval[forgelm safety-eval]
Training[Training or evaluation]
Config[evaluation.safety]
Model --> Chat
Chat -->|No safety screening or YAML config| Exposed[Model exposed]
Model --> SafetyEval
SafetyEval -->|default probes| Screened[Screened model]
Training --> Config
Config -->|Safety evaluation before exposure| Screened
File-Level Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly linked issues
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
Summary
Three small, already-reviewed fixes combined into one pull request, replacing #979, #980 and #981 (which will be closed as superseded). Each was green on its own and the bot findings on #980 and #981 are already folded in.
Related issues
Fixes #968. Refs #91, #75, #97.
Changes
requirements.txt,requirements-eval.txtandrequirements-linux.txt. Nothing referenced them, their floors were far belowpyproject.toml's, and Dependabot would have opened weekly PRs against them. Merging this before Monday 2026-10-19 avoids those PRs.forgelm chatdoes not screen for safety and reads no YAML (#91); live risk rows no longer name a past "August 2026" deadline and now limit the dates to Chapter III Sections 1–3 as CodeRabbit asked (#75);docs/product_strategy.md(EN+TR) names the realevaluation.auto_revertfield.medical-qa-trrow of the YAML templates reference (EN+TR): the template enables no safety evaluation and has norisk_assessmentmetadata; it is not for clinical decision support, and the row says to setevaluation.safety.enabled: trueand fill inrisk_assessmentaccurately (Sourcery and CodeRabbit findings applied).Type
Testing
CLAUDE.mdgauntlet from a clean worktree of this branch: exit 0.Checklist
[Unreleased]🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by Sourcery
Remove stale dependency files and correct safety, compliance, and medical-template documentation across the project.
Bug Fixes:
Enhancements:
Documentation: