[safe-output-health] π₯ Safe Output Health Report β 2026-05-13 #31873
Closed
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
This discussion was automatically closed because it expired on 2026-05-14T05:38:18.327Z.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Executive Summary
The safe-output subsystem is operating cleanly. All
safe_outputsjobs across the sampled runs completed withconclusion=success, including the two runs where the upstream agent job failed. ThesafeoutputsMCP server reported a 0% error rate across every audited run.Safe-Output Job Statistics
Aggregate counts of safe-output tool calls observed across episodes in the window. Job-level success rate is 100% for every job audited.
noopadd_commentpush_to_pull_request_branchsubmit_pull_request_reviewcreate_pull_request_review_commentcreate_issueupdate_issuemissing_datasuccessError Clusters
No safe-output job error clusters were identified in this window.
For context, the 10 errors counted in the workflow summary come from runs whose
safe_outputsjob itself was not the failure point:Where the 10 errors came from (out of scope for this monitor)
safe_outputsjob: successsafe_outputsjob: successThe Smoke CI errors come from the regular CI workflow (test cancellation), not from agentic workflows. The Step Name Alignment and Design Decision Gate failures are agent-job failures handled by separate monitors; in both cases the dedicated
safe_outputsjob still completed successfully.Root Cause Analysis
safeoutputsMCP server returnederror_count=0across all audited runs.agent_output.jsonfiles were validated successfully in every audited run.Recommendations
Immediate actions (critical)
None. Safe-output health is green for this window.
Process Improvements
safe_outputsjob; the audit description claimed the workflow "failed before agent activation" while turn counts (31, 21) clearly indicate the agent ran. Worth verifying the audit-report wording lines up with actual job graph state, since misleading descriptions undermine triage by other monitors. Severity: low (cosmetic, not affecting safe-output execution).noopcalls). This is consistent with a read-only/analysis-heavy workload, but worth keeping in the history so trends are visible if a regression silently suppresses emissions.Work Item Plans
No work items required for this window. A monitoring baseline has been recorded in
/tmp/gh-aw/cache-memory/safe-output-health/for trend comparison in future audits.Historical Context
This is the first audit stored in the safe-output-health cache memory. Future audits should diff against
2026-05-13.jsonfor trend analysis: error rate change, new tool types appearing, job conclusion regressions.Metrics
create_pull_request_review_comment(4 calls in single run Β§25772016551)[aw] Failure Investigatorusedcreate_issue+update_issueNext Steps
References:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions