Repository navigation
docs: publish backend research, graphs and backend usage guide - #189
Conversation
🤖 Codex Code Review
No actionable findings. This PR changes documentation, research artifacts, and Python tooling; it introduces no Rust actor lifecycle or concurrency changes. Archive verification passed: 11,889 hashes, 5,744 original rows, and all recorded CPU audits. Report regeneration could not run because Automated review by OpenAI Codex · gpt-6.1-sol · custom prompt |
🤖 Claude Code Review
PR #189 review: backend research archiveVerdict: This PR changes no runtime or library Rust code, so actor lifecycle, concurrency and API concerns don't apply to this diff. The docs keep a clear line between supported and experimental backends, and the hedging is careful. Most of my feedback is about repository hygiene, the reliability of the evidence files, and robustness of the analysis scripts. Blocking / high priority1. Repository bloat from raw artifactsThe PR commits many large files directly into the repository:
Once merged, these stay in git history permanently and every clone pays for them. Recommendation: move 2. Local machine paths and usernames in committed evidenceThe logs under
Recommendation: strip or redact these before publishing. 3. Some "evidence" logs are empty, failed or incompleteThese are presented as review evidence but contain no actual review:
Recommendation: delete these, or mark them explicitly as failed or aborted runs in an index. Otherwise readers will treat them as supporting approvals. Also, internal tool names ("Agy", "jetski") mean nothing to outside readers. Define them once in 4. Files referenced in the docs are missing from the diffThese are referenced but don't appear in the diff:
Recommendation: confirm these are committed, or fix the links. Documentation qualityA systematic text-munging bug has dropped the space between a word and a following number or identifier. It looks like non-breaking spaces were stripped. It appears in rendered output and in source strings. Examples:
Recommendation: run a regex pass ( Other doc notes:
Script issues
|
🤖 Grok Code Review
This PR does not change actor runtime code. It archives research and adds offline Python tooling. The lifecycle, wake, and shutdown claims are documentation only and are not re-verified against Rust sources here. Blocking / correctness
Scripts
Docs / actor contractThe supported-backend guidance in Typos that will ship into the generated report and No new race, deadlock, or cancellation defect is introduced in Rust by this diff. I would not merge until the missing index, the drain-column check, the resource-table equality, and the actual data/report tree (or an explicit “data not vendored” note plus dropped verify assertions) are fixed. Automated review by Grok (xAI) · grok-4.7 · custom prompt |
🤖 DeepSeek Code Review
Overall this PR changes documentation and research/benchmark artifacts only; there are no Rust runtime/actor-code changes, so no new actor lifecycle, cancellation, timer, or message-ordering bugs are introduced in this diff. A few actionable issues in the Python tooling/docs:
Overall, the provenance/hash/grouping approach is good; the script issues above are mostly robustness/reproducibility concerns rather than runtime concurrency defects. Automated review by DeepSeek · deepseek-v4-pro · custom prompt |
🤖 Gemini Code Review
Here is the review of PR #189. Since this PR consists of documentation, benchmark analysis scripts, and archived research data (with no changes to the Rust crates), the feedback focuses on repository hygiene, script correctness, and documentation quality. 1. Repository Size & Artifact Storage
2. Benchmark Scripts (
|
🤖 Kimi Code Review
No production Rust/actor code changes are included; the issues are in the research tooling and documentation. Findings
Automated review by Kimi (Moonshot AI) · kimi-k3.1-pro · custom prompt |
Stores the completed fede backend study under research/backend-experiments/2026-11-06-fede, with all analysis, graphs, original data, exact source bundles, review evidence and reproduction instructions together. Adds a main README backend-selection guide and usage documentation covering supported modes, private pinned park/spin profiles and actors communicating across runtimes. Earlier studies remain linked from the research index.
The archive contains5,744 successful processes in45 separate blocks,51 figures,144 independent profiles and17 five-minute lifecycle configurations. Tokio leads the displayed corrected many-actor graph; pinned shards show a useful eight-core streaming-pipeline advantage. The report includes all smaller-core cases, min/max ranges, idle/active CPU costs, invalid admission schedules and historical correctness limits. Spinning consumes the assigned cores while idle. No runtime/API change or supported-backend promotion is made by this PR.
Validation on fede: all archive hashes and original-row identity;96 actor CPU audits;24 pinned full cells with three fresh processes each; exact completed block counts and lifecycle conservation. A clean second render reproduces all107 report artifacts byte for byte. Representative graph/scale/offered/resource and both pinned charts were visually inspected; title/legend overlap and clipped-data guards pass. Local documentation links resolve and Python syntax checks pass. Source-specific runtime gates are archived; those code changes were already independently validated and merged in PR185–188.
Agy approved the supplied final findings/protocol/profile interpretation with no blockers, without claiming raw-data reproduction. Review qualifications and transcripts are retained. Raw diagnostics/source boundaries distinguish library defects, historical prototypes and invalid harness attempts. The recommendations keep Tokio default and require representative client workload evidence before supporting another configuration.