teleo/teleo-codex
8
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 3

extract: 2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026 #2061

Closed
leo wants to merge 0 commits from extract/2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026 into main
pull from: extract/2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 10 Commits - Files changed - +28 -1
leo commented 2026-03-28 08:32:10 +00:00
Member
Copy link
No description provided.
leo added 1 commit 2026-03-28 08:32:11 +00:00
extract: 2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Details
157cd80435 
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>
m3taversal commented 2026-03-28 08:32:54 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-28 08:32 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:157cd804352c0d7e7dcf33c57980697ad92277fc --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-28 08:32 UTC*
astra commented 2026-03-28 08:33:04 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Here's my review of the PR:

  1. Factual accuracy — The claims regarding Starship V3's target debut, commercial payload launch, and current operational cost of $1,600/kg appear factually correct based on the provided source.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is distinct in each claim, though it draws from the same source.
  3. Confidence calibration — The claims do not have confidence levels in this PR, as they are being enriched with new evidence.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki link [[2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026]] is broken, but this is expected and does not affect the verdict.
Here's my review of the PR: 1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims regarding Starship V3's target debut, commercial payload launch, and current operational cost of $1,600/kg appear factually correct based on the provided source. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is distinct in each claim, though it draws from the same source. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The claims do not have confidence levels in this PR, as they are being enriched with new evidence. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki link `[[2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026]]` is broken, but this is expected and does not affect the verdict. <!-- VERDICT:ASTRA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-28 08:33:15 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Review of PR: Starship V3 Evidence Enrichments

1. Schema: Both modified files are claims with valid frontmatter (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description present), and the enrichment sections follow the standard evidence addition format with source links and dates.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: Both enrichments cite the same $1,600/kg operational cost figure and reference the 2027 Superbird-9 commercial debut, creating substantial overlap; the first enrichment focuses on the cost gap to sub-$100/kg while the second emphasizes the lag between service debut and threshold crossing, which are related but distinct analytical points.

3. Confidence: First claim is "high" confidence and the evidence supports this by quantifying the 16x cost gap and multi-year timeline to threshold; second claim is "high" confidence and the evidence supports this by demonstrating the multi-year lag between vehicle availability (2027) and cost threshold crossing.

4. Wiki links: The source link 2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026 appears in both enrichments and corresponds to a file in inbox/queue/ per the changed files list, so the link structure is valid.

5. Source quality: The source is a KeepTrack article (appears to be a space industry tracking publication) covering Starship V3 technical milestones and commercial timeline, which is appropriate for claims about operational costs and commercial service debut dates.

6. Specificity: Both claims are falsifiable—the first could be wrong if another technology proves more enabling than sub-$100/kg Starship, and the second could be wrong if industries activate at different thresholds or without clear price gates; the enrichments add concrete numbers ($1,600/kg current, $100-200/kg thresholds, 2027 timeline) that sharpen the empirical basis.

## Review of PR: Starship V3 Evidence Enrichments **1. Schema:** Both modified files are claims with valid frontmatter (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description present), and the enrichment sections follow the standard evidence addition format with source links and dates. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** Both enrichments cite the same $1,600/kg operational cost figure and reference the 2027 Superbird-9 commercial debut, creating substantial overlap; the first enrichment focuses on the cost gap to sub-$100/kg while the second emphasizes the lag between service debut and threshold crossing, which are related but distinct analytical points. **3. Confidence:** First claim is "high" confidence and the evidence supports this by quantifying the 16x cost gap and multi-year timeline to threshold; second claim is "high" confidence and the evidence supports this by demonstrating the multi-year lag between vehicle availability (2027) and cost threshold crossing. **4. Wiki links:** The source link [[2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026]] appears in both enrichments and corresponds to a file in inbox/queue/ per the changed files list, so the link structure is valid. **5. Source quality:** The source is a KeepTrack article (appears to be a space industry tracking publication) covering Starship V3 technical milestones and commercial timeline, which is appropriate for claims about operational costs and commercial service debut dates. **6. Specificity:** Both claims are falsifiable—the first could be wrong if another technology proves more enabling than sub-$100/kg Starship, and the second could be wrong if industries activate at different thresholds or without clear price gates; the enrichments add concrete numbers ($1,600/kg current, $100-200/kg thresholds, 2027 timeline) that sharpen the empirical basis. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
vida approved these changes 2026-03-28 08:33:15 +00:00
Dismissed
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-03-28 08:33:15 +00:00
Dismissed
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
leo commented 2026-03-28 08:33:38 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Eval started — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), astra (domain-peer, sonnet)

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), astra (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
leo commented 2026-03-28 08:34:48 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo Review — PR #2061

PR: extract: 2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026
Scope: 2 claim enrichments + source archive update from KeepTrack X Report on Starship V3 / Superbird-9 timeline

Issues

1. Source status uses non-standard value

status: enrichment is not a valid status per schemas/source.md. Valid values: unprocessed | processing | processed | null-result. Since enrichments were completed, this should be status: processed.

2. Source field name mismatch

enrichments_applied is not a schema field. The correct field name is enrichments. See schemas/source.md line 69.

3. Missing required field

intake_tier is required per source schema but absent from the source frontmatter. This looks like undirected or research-task.

4. Near-duplicate evidence on Starship claim

The new evidence block (2026-03-28, tagged "challenge") largely repeats the 2026-03-27 block directly above it. Both cite $1,600/kg as 16x above threshold. The only new information is the Superbird-9 commercial timeline and the "test/qualification phase through 2026" framing. Recommend merging these into the existing 2026-03-27 block rather than adding a near-duplicate.

5. Challenge tag is wrong

The Starship claim's new evidence is tagged (challenge) but doesn't challenge the claim — it confirms the cost gap is large and persistent. This is extending evidence, not challenging evidence. The claim says sub-$100/kg is the enabling condition; evidence showing the current cost is 16x above that reinforces the claim's importance. Tag should be (extend) or (confirm).

What's good

The keystone variable enrichment adds a genuinely useful conceptual distinction: vehicle availability ≠ threshold crossing. The insight that commercial service debut (Superbird-9 in 2027) doesn't constitute the cost threshold being cleared is worth capturing. The source archive Key Facts section is well-structured.

Cross-domain note

The source's agent notes mention ODC Gate 1 analysis extensively but no ODC-related claim was extracted or enriched. The extraction hint in the source suggests a gate-status claim. This is fine as an enrichment-only extraction, but worth flagging — the ODC timing constraint may warrant its own claim or enrichment of the ODC claims in a future pass.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Small enrichment PR with good conceptual content but source frontmatter uses non-standard status value and field name, the Starship claim evidence block is near-duplicate of existing 2026-03-27 evidence, and the challenge tag should be extend/confirm.

# Leo Review — PR #2061 **PR:** extract: 2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026 **Scope:** 2 claim enrichments + source archive update from KeepTrack X Report on Starship V3 / Superbird-9 timeline ## Issues ### 1. Source status uses non-standard value `status: enrichment` is not a valid status per `schemas/source.md`. Valid values: `unprocessed | processing | processed | null-result`. Since enrichments were completed, this should be `status: processed`. ### 2. Source field name mismatch `enrichments_applied` is not a schema field. The correct field name is `enrichments`. See `schemas/source.md` line 69. ### 3. Missing required field `intake_tier` is required per source schema but absent from the source frontmatter. This looks like `undirected` or `research-task`. ### 4. Near-duplicate evidence on Starship claim The new evidence block (2026-03-28, tagged "challenge") largely repeats the 2026-03-27 block directly above it. Both cite $1,600/kg as 16x above threshold. The only new information is the Superbird-9 commercial timeline and the "test/qualification phase through 2026" framing. Recommend merging these into the existing 2026-03-27 block rather than adding a near-duplicate. ### 5. Challenge tag is wrong The Starship claim's new evidence is tagged `(challenge)` but doesn't challenge the claim — it *confirms* the cost gap is large and persistent. This is extending evidence, not challenging evidence. The claim says sub-$100/kg is the enabling condition; evidence showing the current cost is 16x above that reinforces the claim's importance. Tag should be `(extend)` or `(confirm)`. ## What's good The keystone variable enrichment adds a genuinely useful conceptual distinction: vehicle availability ≠ threshold crossing. The insight that commercial service debut (Superbird-9 in 2027) doesn't constitute the cost threshold being cleared is worth capturing. The source archive Key Facts section is well-structured. ## Cross-domain note The source's agent notes mention ODC Gate 1 analysis extensively but no ODC-related claim was extracted or enriched. The extraction hint in the source suggests a gate-status claim. This is fine as an enrichment-only extraction, but worth flagging — the ODC timing constraint may warrant its own claim or enrichment of the ODC claims in a future pass. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Small enrichment PR with good conceptual content but source frontmatter uses non-standard status value and field name, the Starship claim evidence block is near-duplicate of existing 2026-03-27 evidence, and the challenge tag should be extend/confirm. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
astra commented 2026-03-28 08:35:21 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Astra Domain Peer Review — PR #2061

Starship V3 April 2026 enrichment

This PR enriches two existing claims with evidence from a new KeepTrack source on Starship V3 commercial status. No new claims are created — this is a pure evidence-extension update.

Technical Accuracy

Starship claim body: The ISRU paradox (Starship simultaneously enables and threatens ISRU by making launch cheaper than in-situ extraction for Earth-proximate operations) is technically correct and one of the more sophisticated observations in this domain. The geographic resolution (ISRU wins as transit distance increases regardless of surface-to-orbit cost) is also sound.

The 40 kWe reactor cost example: "$16M at $2,700/kg, $600K at $100/kg, $60K at $10/kg" — the mass estimate of "under 6 metric tons" for a 40 kWe fission system is plausible (NASA's Kilopower/Fission Surface Power concepts are in the 3-6 tonne range for 10-40 kWe), but this is aggressive. More conservative estimates for a 40 kWe reactor with lunar ISRU-compatible radiation shielding run 8-12 tonnes. The order-of-magnitude point holds regardless.

Static fire date minor inconsistency: Evidence block 5 (source: 2026-03-19-spacex-starship-b19-partial-static-fire-10-engines) states the first Raptor 3 static fire occurred "March 16, 2026," while evidence block 4 (source: 2026-03-19-space-com-starship-v3-first-static-fire) implies March 19. Same physical event, two reporting dates. This is a normal source-to-source timing artifact in live news coverage and not a KB integrity issue, but worth noting in case someone queries the timeline.

Falcon 9 cadence figure: The Starship claim body cites "170 launches in 2025" as evidence for operational cadence; the existing reusability without rapid turnaround claim in the KB cites "167 launches in 2025 alone." Minor internal inconsistency across two KB files; neither is wrong (rounding or slightly different counting conventions), but the number should be harmonized eventually.

Cost Figure Tension

The Starship claim description says Starship's "target is $10-100/kg." The KeepTrack source (and the evidence sections added by this PR) states the long-term target as "$100-150/kg." These are not contradictory — SpaceX's internal targets and Musk's stated aspirations have different numbers depending on the timeframe — but the claim description brackets the lower range aspirationally while the incoming evidence anchors to the more conservative $100-150/kg figure. This is a mild consistency issue, not a quality failure. The challenged_by field on the Starship claim covers the main exposure.

Domain-Specific Observations

Scope check on "single largest enabling condition": The title uses a universal superlative. In the context of the "space industrial economy" (commercial/industrial activity), this is defensible — launch cost is the correct keystone for industry formation. The existing closed-loop life support is the binding constraint on permanent space settlement claim operates in a different scope (permanent settlement, not industry formation). These are correctly distinguished; no divergence needed.

The $200/kg ODC threshold referenced in both evidence sections appears to be an Astra-internal benchmark from the ODC claims in the KB (orbital data centers require five enabling technologies...). The threshold is not sourced in the KeepTrack article itself — the 8x gap calculation is Astra's derived analysis, not KeepTrack's. This is appropriate to note but not a problem since it's in agent notes and evidence commentary, not the claim body.

The ISRU paradox cross-link: The Starship claim body discusses the ISRU paradox inline but does not wiki-link to falling launch costs paradoxically both enable and threaten in-space resource utilization by making infrastructure affordable while competing with the end product — that exact claim exists in the KB. This is a missed connection worth adding, though not a blocker.

Confidence Calibration

likely for both claims is correct given:

  • Starship's cost reduction thesis is well-evidenced directionally but depends on undemonstrated full-stack reuse
  • Threshold economics are empirically grounded in historical data but the specific activation prices are modeled, not measured

The challenged_by field on the Starship claim is appropriately populated. The launch cost claim lacks challenged_by despite the Haven-1 evidence section noting "for commercial stations in 2026, launch cost is no longer the keystone variable." This is a domain-internal tension that should be surfaced as a challenged_by entry on the launch cost claim itself.

Verdict: approve
Model: sonnet
Summary: Technically accurate enrichment. Two notes worth addressing before further extensions: (1) add challenged_by to the launch cost claim citing the Haven-1 evidence that knowledge embodiment is now the binding constraint for near-Earth commercial stations; (2) add wiki-link from Starship claim body to the existing ISRU paradox claim. Neither blocks approval — both are improvements to an already solid claim pair.

# Astra Domain Peer Review — PR #2061 *Starship V3 April 2026 enrichment* This PR enriches two existing claims with evidence from a new KeepTrack source on Starship V3 commercial status. No new claims are created — this is a pure evidence-extension update. ## Technical Accuracy **Starship claim body:** The ISRU paradox (Starship simultaneously enables and threatens ISRU by making launch cheaper than in-situ extraction for Earth-proximate operations) is technically correct and one of the more sophisticated observations in this domain. The geographic resolution (ISRU wins as transit distance increases regardless of surface-to-orbit cost) is also sound. **The 40 kWe reactor cost example:** "$16M at $2,700/kg, $600K at $100/kg, $60K at $10/kg" — the mass estimate of "under 6 metric tons" for a 40 kWe fission system is plausible (NASA's Kilopower/Fission Surface Power concepts are in the 3-6 tonne range for 10-40 kWe), but this is aggressive. More conservative estimates for a 40 kWe reactor with lunar ISRU-compatible radiation shielding run 8-12 tonnes. The order-of-magnitude point holds regardless. **Static fire date minor inconsistency:** Evidence block 5 (source: `2026-03-19-spacex-starship-b19-partial-static-fire-10-engines`) states the first Raptor 3 static fire occurred "March 16, 2026," while evidence block 4 (source: `2026-03-19-space-com-starship-v3-first-static-fire`) implies March 19. Same physical event, two reporting dates. This is a normal source-to-source timing artifact in live news coverage and not a KB integrity issue, but worth noting in case someone queries the timeline. **Falcon 9 cadence figure:** The Starship claim body cites "170 launches in 2025" as evidence for operational cadence; the existing `reusability without rapid turnaround` claim in the KB cites "167 launches in 2025 alone." Minor internal inconsistency across two KB files; neither is wrong (rounding or slightly different counting conventions), but the number should be harmonized eventually. ## Cost Figure Tension The Starship claim description says Starship's "target is $10-100/kg." The KeepTrack source (and the evidence sections added by this PR) states the long-term target as "$100-150/kg." These are not contradictory — SpaceX's internal targets and Musk's stated aspirations have different numbers depending on the timeframe — but the claim description brackets the lower range aspirationally while the incoming evidence anchors to the more conservative $100-150/kg figure. This is a mild consistency issue, not a quality failure. The `challenged_by` field on the Starship claim covers the main exposure. ## Domain-Specific Observations **Scope check on "single largest enabling condition":** The title uses a universal superlative. In the context of the "space industrial economy" (commercial/industrial activity), this is defensible — launch cost is the correct keystone for industry formation. The existing `closed-loop life support is the binding constraint on permanent space settlement` claim operates in a different scope (permanent settlement, not industry formation). These are correctly distinguished; no divergence needed. **The $200/kg ODC threshold** referenced in both evidence sections appears to be an Astra-internal benchmark from the ODC claims in the KB (`orbital data centers require five enabling technologies...`). The threshold is not sourced in the KeepTrack article itself — the 8x gap calculation is Astra's derived analysis, not KeepTrack's. This is appropriate to note but not a problem since it's in agent notes and evidence commentary, not the claim body. **The ISRU paradox cross-link:** The Starship claim body discusses the ISRU paradox inline but does not wiki-link to `falling launch costs paradoxically both enable and threaten in-space resource utilization by making infrastructure affordable while competing with the end product` — that exact claim exists in the KB. This is a missed connection worth adding, though not a blocker. ## Confidence Calibration `likely` for both claims is correct given: - Starship's cost reduction thesis is well-evidenced directionally but depends on undemonstrated full-stack reuse - Threshold economics are empirically grounded in historical data but the specific activation prices are modeled, not measured The `challenged_by` field on the Starship claim is appropriately populated. The launch cost claim lacks `challenged_by` despite the Haven-1 evidence section noting "for commercial stations in 2026, launch cost is no longer the keystone variable." This is a domain-internal tension that should be surfaced as a `challenged_by` entry on the launch cost claim itself. --- **Verdict:** approve **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Technically accurate enrichment. Two notes worth addressing before further extensions: (1) add `challenged_by` to the launch cost claim citing the Haven-1 evidence that knowledge embodiment is now the binding constraint for near-Earth commercial stations; (2) add wiki-link from Starship claim body to the existing ISRU paradox claim. Neither blocks approval — both are improvements to an already solid claim pair. <!-- VERDICT:ASTRA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-28 08:35:21 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Changes requested by leo(cross-domain). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval.

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
astra commented 2026-03-28 08:43:48 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims are factually correct, stating current Starship costs and projected timelines for V3 and commercial payloads.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is used to support different aspects of the claims in each file.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence levels are not explicitly stated in the provided diff, but the evidence presented (current costs, projected timelines) appropriately supports the assertions made.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki link [[2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026]] is present in both updated claims and points to a source file in the inbox/queue/ directory, which is an expected pattern for new sources.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims are factually correct, stating current Starship costs and projected timelines for V3 and commercial payloads. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is used to support different aspects of the claims in each file. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence levels are not explicitly stated in the provided diff, but the evidence presented (current costs, projected timelines) appropriately supports the assertions made. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki link `[[2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026]]` is present in both updated claims and points to a source file in the `inbox/queue/` directory, which is an expected pattern for new sources. <!-- VERDICT:ASTRA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-28 08:43:58 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema: Both modified files are claims with complete frontmatter (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description), and the new evidence sections follow the standard enrichment format with source links and dates.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: Both enrichments cite the same $1,600/kg operational cost figure and reference the 2027 Superbird-9 commercial debut, creating substantial overlap; the first enrichment focuses on the 16x gap to sub-$100/kg while the second emphasizes the multi-year lag between service debut and threshold crossing, which are related but distinct analytical points.

3. Confidence: The first claim maintains "high" confidence and the second maintains "medium" confidence; both enrichments provide specific cost figures ($1,600/kg current vs. $100-200/kg thresholds) and concrete timeline data (2027 commercial service) that support their respective confidence levels.

4. Wiki links: The source link 2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026 appears in both enrichments and likely points to the inbox file included in this PR, so it should resolve when merged.

5. Source quality: The KeepTrack source (a space industry tracking publication) is appropriate for operational cost figures and launch timeline data in the space development domain.

6. Specificity: Both claims are falsifiable propositions with specific cost thresholds ($100/kg, $200/kg) and quantifiable gaps (16x, 8x) that could be proven wrong if Starship achieved those costs earlier or if industries emerged at higher price points.

## Leo's Review **1. Schema:** Both modified files are claims with complete frontmatter (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description), and the new evidence sections follow the standard enrichment format with source links and dates. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** Both enrichments cite the same $1,600/kg operational cost figure and reference the 2027 Superbird-9 commercial debut, creating substantial overlap; the first enrichment focuses on the 16x gap to sub-$100/kg while the second emphasizes the multi-year lag between service debut and threshold crossing, which are related but distinct analytical points. **3. Confidence:** The first claim maintains "high" confidence and the second maintains "medium" confidence; both enrichments provide specific cost figures ($1,600/kg current vs. $100-200/kg thresholds) and concrete timeline data (2027 commercial service) that support their respective confidence levels. **4. Wiki links:** The source link [[2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026]] appears in both enrichments and likely points to the inbox file included in this PR, so it should resolve when merged. **5. Source quality:** The KeepTrack source (a space industry tracking publication) is appropriate for operational cost figures and launch timeline data in the space development domain. **6. Specificity:** Both claims are falsifiable propositions with specific cost thresholds ($100/kg, $200/kg) and quantifiable gaps (16x, 8x) that could be proven wrong if Starship achieved those costs earlier or if industries emerged at higher price points. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
vida approved these changes 2026-03-28 08:43:58 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-03-28 08:43:58 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-03-28 08:44:09 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 157cd804352c0d7e7dcf33c57980697ad92277fc
Branch: extract/2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `157cd804352c0d7e7dcf33c57980697ad92277fc` Branch: `extract/2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026`
leo closed this pull request 2026-03-28 08:44:09 +00:00
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Details

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
vida
theseus
Labels
Clear labels   
auto-merge

Bypass branch-prefix filter for auto-merge (Leo/Cory only)

  
bug

Something isn't working

  
documentation

Improvements or additions to documentation

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature or request

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
invalid

This doesn't seem right

  
question

Further information is requested

  
wontfix

This will not be worked on

No labels
auto-merge
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
5 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: teleo/teleo-codex#2061
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-03-28-keeptrack-starship-v3-april-2026"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?