ci: explain rejected native Go cache job evidence

[devantler]

🤖 Generated by the Agentic Engineer

Why

An intermittent shared CI failure loses the detail needed to distinguish incomplete job evidence from a real cache-policy problem. That makes recovery slower and can encourage unnecessary reruns.

What

Report bounded, privacy-safe counts when that evidence is rejected, while keeping every validation rule and failure outcome unchanged. This prepares a reliable diagnosis of the next occurrence; it does not claim the historical cause is proven.

Part of #655

[devantler]

🤖 Generated by the Agentic Engineer

Pre-submission validation at 03242e44babe19aa02a75b7777267461a971630f:

• RED: the actual helper's rejection exposed no sanitized diagnostic. GREEN: inconsistent totals, missing jobs, duplicate IDs, wrong attempts and unfinished fixtures are distinguished by count-only evidence. The existing acceptance predicate is unchanged.
• The published diagnostic has a strict field allow-list and at most eight reported totals. Invalid shape, malformed JSON, empty input, whitespace and multiple roots produce a constant safe response; synthetic sensitive-text controls do not escape. The empty/multiple-root control first failed and then passed after correcting diagnostic input cardinality.
• The original PR/main-save/main-reuse and native collector/refusal controls pass, as does the independent module cache policy suite. ShellCheck and diff checks pass. All fourteen repository baseline commands pass, including rendered configuration, lifecycle and read-only governance controls.
• Correctness/privacy and simplification passes found no remaining actionable issue. The read-only advisory is not a substitute for substantive authorized review.

No read retry, credential, cache writer, success predicate or required-check policy changed. This slice improves diagnosis only; the rejected historical snapshot was not retained, so #655 remains open. Exact-head hosted checks, review and merge are still pending.

[github-code-quality]

Code coverage overview

Languages: Go, C#

Go / code-coverage/test

main 576414b	codex/cache-observer... 03242e4	+/-
50%	50%	0%

C# / code-coverage/dotnet

main 576414b	codex/cache-observer... 03242e4	+/-
100%	100%	0%

Go / code-coverage/go

main 576414b	codex/cache-observer... 03242e4	+/-
50%	50%	0%

ℹ️ Calculations represent line coverage. Results may change as calculations are updated.

---

_{Updated October 19, 2026 19:18 UTC}

[devantler]

🤖 Generated by the Agentic Engineer

@coderabbitai full review

[coderabbitai]

⚠️ Action not completed

Review rate limited.

---

Your included review limit is currently reached under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. This review may still proceed through usage-based billing if eligible. Your next included review will be available in 42 minutes.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

Next included review available in 41 minutes.

Check out review usage here.

View limit details

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available.

Learn how review limits work.

Review configuration:

⚙️ Run configuration

• Configuration used: Repository YAML (base), Organization UI (inherited)
• Review profile: ASSERTIVE
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 3ec11c7a-384a-4049-bbbd-dc1ff8de6f5f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 576414b and 03242e4.

📒 Files selected for processing: 2

• .github/scripts/observe-go-cache.sh
• .github/tests/test-go-cache-native-observer.sh

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[devantler]

🤖 Generated by the Agentic Engineer

CodeRabbit declined this head at 19:34 UTC because its included review allowance is exhausted, with the next included review around 20:16 UTC. The fresh complete no-gate guard admits progression; the refusal is not a review or approval. Advancing to the next authorized provider, without enabling paid continuation.

@codex review

[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 2026-10-19T19:38:38.300730Z	03242e4	Manual request

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.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. More of your lovely PRs please.

Reviewed commit: 03242e44ba

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".