[parkjinman98]

Summary

• Add a read-only, metadata-only configuration verifier for exact runtime artifact paths: normalized board/MXQ filename and root/ONNX filename.
• Resolve the configured revision once, then list files at that exact returned commit to avoid branch-movement races. Do not download weights or modify any Hub repository.
• Keep local-artifact-only models offline and report them as skipped. Propagate API/access/network errors rather than claiming a file is absent.
• Add offline mocks and explicitly network-marked representative integration tests; document the distinction between live commit diagnostics and historical approved revision evidence.

Stack and scope

Stacked on #28 (feat/config-inheritance-coverage); this PR adds only the Hub verifier. No existing YAML is modified. The full read-only audit found no explicit approved artifact HF commit provenance, so pinning to today's main would invent provenance and is intentionally deferred. Upstream timm/source-model commits are not artifact approval commits.

Validation

• Full offline CPU suite: 1376 passed, 19 deselected (67.57s).
• Focused offline + live metadata suite: 14 passed, including AlexNet, ResNet50 and YOLOv8n MXQ/ONNX metadata paths. No model bytes downloaded.
• New modules pass Ruff lint/format; git diff --check passes.
• Numeric preprocessing/identity evidence remains unchanged from Add opt-in YAML family inheritance with all-model identity proofs #28; this PR does not alter preprocessing or postprocessing.
• No GPU/NPU execution, no HF writes, no approval-revision guesses.

Review guide

Exact head: e8fe25c01c7ec9513485dfa164957cc3ab138a8e. Check runtime path parity, no board/root fallback for MXQ, symbolic-revision snapshot consistency, local-only no-network behavior, and propagation of API failures. Verify the network tests remain opt-in through requires_network.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[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 2026-11-04T08:20:30.164028Z	11d3282	Manual request
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-04T08:22:34.614641Z	11d3282	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.

[parkjinman98]

@codex review

Exact head 8b64b7326c8f3b4fc7293480905d9a73800d0b3a. main merge only, own diff unchanged. Integrated squash-merged #28/main 9a81fb52 using a merge commit, no force push. The complete binary diff against current main is byte-for-byte identical to the previous own diff against original #28 head 281b8683; no feature behavior changes. Resolved the skill-guide ancestry conflict by preserving the existing verifier paragraph.

Full offline CPU after integration: 1376 passed, 19 deselected. Existing all-595 variant identity proof remains green. Please review this exact integration head; dependent PRs #31/#32 have been retargeted to main before any parent branch deletion. Squash merge will occur only after exact-head agent approval.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8b64b7326c

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggered

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8b64b7326c

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

[parkjinman98]

@codex review

Exact head 11d32827a7d8ba9cad3f63f0fd12e5a8eca4d5ed. Main integration own diff was unchanged; this follow-up fixes the single new target-board precedence finding. Explicit override > configured target_device > aries-rb, with configured-Regulus and explicit-Aries regression checks. Full offline CPU 1377 passed,19 deselected, including all595 legacy identity cases. Thread replied/resolved. Check path parity; no runtime/model/YAML/version changes.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work!

Reviewed commit: 11d32827a7

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggered

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 11d32827a7

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.