docs(skill): guide wallet setup from environment - #36
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 127acce223
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".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
snissn
left a comment
snissn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Codex review — changes required before merge
Reviewed on exact head 127acce223699fe852323de6a85a68654a30cbe0.
Two workflow gaps need correction:
- The ASK phase does not resolve storage runway, although the selected Calibration path later requires
--extraRunway <requested-runway-months>. That forces an agent either to guess a financially relevant duration or to stop again after wallet setup. The existing unresolved inline thread identifies this correctly. - The cost example does not carry the intended upload shape through to the quote.
wallet costsmust use the same--copiesand--withCDNchoices as the eventual upload; otherwise a non-default request can be underquoted even though the prose says the estimate reflects the actual requirements.
Please resolve the upload parameters needed for planning—at least runway, copy count, and CDN choice when not already specified—and pass them consistently to both the quote and upload. The environment-first wallet discovery and non-replacement guidance otherwise look sound.
GitHub does not permit a reviewer authenticated as the PR author to submit a formal REQUEST_CHANGES review, so this is posted as a blocking comment review.
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 8df4b27a7b
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".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Can't wait for the next one! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
|
Resolved on current head
Both requested changes are present on the current PR head. No merge performed. |
2 participants
Summary
Review convergence
The initial internal review found two issues: the recommendation could ignore an existing wallet, and the example hard-coded storage requirements. Both were fixed and re-reviewed cleanly.
Codex found two issues in successive rounds. The skill now resolves an unspecified runway before cost estimation and passes the planned
--copiesand--withCDNoptions into the quote. Both threads are resolved.Validation
bun run test: 203 passed, 500 assertionsbunx biome check src testsbunx tsc --noEmitbun run buildScope
Skill guidance only. Faucet details and CLI funding behavior are intentionally handled separately.