[Dong1017]

Summary

• Add a five-line exact-Bundle fast path after the item count is full, without skipping reads, validation, filters, ranking or omissions. Subclasses retain the original serialization/error behavior; byte budgets are unchanged.
• Add focused correctness/count tests and a reproducible issue-scoped CPU campaign. The primary paired latency reduction is 9.434% (95% CI 4.603–13.337%); all prospective guards and independent saved-output/resource checks pass.
• Preserve full raw evidence and the efficiency-versus-accuracy table. Historical failed candidates remain rejected; this does not establish accuracy improvement or complete the overall requirements tracked in [Tracking] Skill Indexer: retrieval efficiency and accuracy #255.

Evidence

Baseline f93df05; measured candidate 9f7862a9f8619dd68ac59f12736f6b50da10d9e8. One frozen 120-pair study, no retries/pooling. See result table and limits.

Untouched search CLI p95 point change +8.99% passes the prespecified 20% guard, but its confidence interval remains wide (−42.02%…+32.85%). No broad tail-safety, production SLO, model/hardware efficacy or accuracy gain is claimed.

Verification

• 113 affected tests passed; 2 Windows-only skips.
• 17 final evidence-inventory tests passed; 15 new integrity hashes verified.
• Ruff passes for src/tests/tools and campaign validators.
• Independent audit verifies 120 groups / 240 arm receipts / 480 paired path comparisons, exact arithmetic, source identity and 5 complete contexts / 17 required resources.
• Final-head Ready CI passed on Python 3.10 and 3.11, including full tests, Ruff and clean installed-wheel checks. Formal approval and merge are separate.

Related to #255 (tracker remains open).

Current-main integration verification

• Integrated main 95e169fb2d4528f6a94492df394c69d9b7be8139 in head faef9267b3e2f99bb1f385ecfa5b095796585626. Reconciled the two additive evidence-inventory conflicts, retaining both frozen studies; the inventory now covers 16 bundles and 336 checked hashes.
• The runtime delta against that main remains the original five-line exact-Bundle fast path. The raw-string opt-in selector and default behavior are preserved. 140 focused tests passed (2 Windows-only skips), Ruff passed, and 13 deterministic collect-output comparisons against that main were exactly equal across default/material/byte/context/explicit-ID cases and both relevance methods.
• One initial local full-suite attempt recorded 2,734 passes, 12 skips and 4 failures: one ran before the merge commit and compared the updated index against the old HEAD; three subprocesses exceeded their existing 8/10-second limits. Subsequent isolated reruns of all affected suites passed (4 frozen-byte tests, 24 policy-reporting tests plus 26 subtests, 216 MLC tests). No test timeout or acceptance threshold was changed. The final-head hosted full-suite checks above passed independently.
• Current-head native code review completed with no findings. Both frozen evidence trees remain byte-identical to their pre-integration versions, and all 249 original raw files in the efficiency archive verified. No new latency study, paid/model call or hardware experiment was run; the historical 120-pair result is not a new measurement of current main.

Knowledge authorship declaration

The owner confirmed the actual authoring configuration as gpt-6-astra / xhigh; the same confirmed configuration covers the integration work. This is an owner-confirmed provenance declaration, not independent backend attestation.

{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "head_sha": "faef9267b3e2f99bb1f385ecfa5b095796585626",
  "human_only": false,
  "material_ai_authors": [
    {
      "tool": "Codex",
      "model_id": "gpt-6-astra",
      "effort": "xhigh",
      "role": "author"
    }
  ]
}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-30T11:08:01.102321Z	faef926	New commits

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[Dong1017]

No additional blocking source defect found in faef926; merge readiness is still blocked by the current author-declaration check.

• The exact-Bundle fast path skips only redundant sizing after count saturation. Reads/resource validation, filtering/ranking, byte-budget handling and custom-subclass serialization remain on their existing paths. I also checked its boundary with the newly merged opt-in raw-string selector.
• All four Ready jobs pass. The current policy result is noncompliant, with “Missing, invalid or stale knowledge author declaration”; it is not a source-test failure or an infrastructure outage. The existing author, @Dong1017, needs a valid declaration applicable to this head.
• The retained study reports a 9.434% paired latency reduction on its frozen earlier baseline. Those measurements were not repeated on current main; accuracy, broad tail safety and the overall #255 goals remain unaccepted. The reported search p95 uncertainty remains explicit.
• This is a source/status review, not LGTM or formal approval. I used source and existing hosted evidence; I did not run tests, the benchmark, archive verification, models or devices.

Evidence and exact versions

• Reviewed head: faef9267b3e2f99bb1f385ecfa5b095796585626.
• Assessed API base / observed main: 95e169fb2d4528f6a94492df394c69d9b7be8139; raw-string delivery head: 95a35192668d155e30c5b1d97146a6a5ddc84d96.
• Source: collect/select and intake, Bundle validation/view, added serialization tests, campaign protocol/runner and retained candidate patch.
• Ready: Python 3.10/3.11 full-check and installed-package jobs succeed. Current policy: status 57664049583, evaluated head matches above, execution ok, admission noncompliant. The automatic Skill Eval path filters do not select this runtime/evidence-only diff; no comparison pass is inferred.
• Frozen study, raw evidence and limits: measured baseline f93df0548a26714f6514337a8525c7c14108acad, candidate 9f7862a9f8619dd68ac59f12736f6b50da10d9e8. The five-line runtime delta matches the retained candidate patch. Reported arithmetic/output audit is retained evidence, not a new benchmark or independent raw-archive recomputation in this review.
• COMMENTED is appropriate here: the authenticated GitHub account is also the PR author, and the declaration blocker remains.

[Dong1017]

LGTM for the bounded efficiency slice at faef9267. The prerequisite in the earlier source review is now satisfied: the current-head owner-confirmed author declaration passes policy CI.

• All four Ready checks pass. Native and independent integration reviews found no additional blocker.
• Additive inventory conflicts are reconciled; the original five-line optimization and both frozen evidence sets remain intact. Default and opt-in raw-string behavior were checked across the integration boundary.
• The 9.434% paired reduction belongs to the frozen historical study, not a fresh benchmark of current main. General accuracy and broader tracker acceptance remain outstanding.

Traceability

Inspected head faef926; main 95e169f; tree 23ceb5431b51788cb4582edcff43a111b0122f50. Reconciles the 2026-10-30 12:20:45 COMMENTED review and native comment 6518777294. Integration verification includes 140 focused tests, 13 exact-output comparisons and preserved frozen files. The initial local whole-suite attempt had a precommit HEAD/index mismatch and three subprocess timeouts; affected suites passed isolated reruns and final hosted whole suites passed. No new model, hardware or scored-study run.