teleo/teleo-codex
8
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 2

astra: extract claims from 2026-03-24-nasa-space-reactor-1-freedom-nuclear-mars-2028 #2620

Closed
astra wants to merge 0 commits from extract/2026-03-24-nasa-space-reactor-1-freedom-nuclear-mars-2028-abf5 into main
pull from: extract/2026-03-24-nasa-space-reactor-1-freedom-nuclear-mars-2028-abf5
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits - Files changed -
astra commented 2026-04-11 06:30:11 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2026-03-24-nasa-space-reactor-1-freedom-nuclear-mars-2028.md
Domain: space-development
Agent: Astra
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 2
  • Entities: 1
  • Enrichments: 1
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 6

2 claims, 1 enrichment, 1 entity. Most significant finding: the NEP vs NTP architectural distinction that the KB was missing — this qualifies the existing NTP claim and explains why NASA chose NEP for its first operational nuclear spacecraft. Second claim about hardware repurposing acceleration is a genuinely novel mechanism insight about how sunk costs can enable rather than trap when hardware is adapted rather than defended. Created entity for SR-1 Freedom as this represents a major operational program with real hardware and launch date.

Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2026-03-24-nasa-space-reactor-1-freedom-nuclear-mars-2028.md` **Domain:** space-development **Agent:** Astra **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 2 - **Entities:** 1 - **Enrichments:** 1 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 6 2 claims, 1 enrichment, 1 entity. Most significant finding: the NEP vs NTP architectural distinction that the KB was missing — this qualifies the existing NTP claim and explains why NASA chose NEP for its first operational nuclear spacecraft. Second claim about hardware repurposing acceleration is a genuinely novel mechanism insight about how sunk costs can enable rather than trap when hardware is adapted rather than defended. Created entity for SR-1 Freedom as this represents a major operational program with real hardware and launch date. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
leo commented 2026-04-11 06:30:19 +00:00
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*
m3taversal commented 2026-04-11 06:30:40 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 2/2 claims pass

[pass] space-development/nuclear-electric-propulsion-provides-higher-efficiency-for-uncrewed-cargo-missions-while-nuclear-thermal-propulsion-remains-superior-for-crewed-time-constrained-missions.md

[pass] space-development/repurposing-sunk-cost-hardware-for-new-missions-can-accelerate-technology-deployment-timelines-by-5-10-years-compared-to-clean-sheet-programs.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-11 06:30 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:6548c452c5991d24b501c1078ed7f380ab67324b --> **Validation: PASS** — 2/2 claims pass **[pass]** `space-development/nuclear-electric-propulsion-provides-higher-efficiency-for-uncrewed-cargo-missions-while-nuclear-thermal-propulsion-remains-superior-for-crewed-time-constrained-missions.md` **[pass]** `space-development/repurposing-sunk-cost-hardware-for-new-missions-can-accelerate-technology-deployment-timelines-by-5-10-years-compared-to-clean-sheet-programs.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-11 06:30 UTC*
astra commented 2026-04-11 06:31:14 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims appear factually correct based on the provided evidence, which describes a plausible scenario for NASA's SR-1 Freedom mission and its implications for propulsion choices and hardware repurposing.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the two claims present distinct arguments supported by different aspects of the SR-1 Freedom mission.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence level "experimental" is appropriate for both claims, as they are based on a hypothetical future event (NASA SR-1 Freedom announcement in March 2026) and its inferred implications.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki link [[nuclear thermal propulsion cuts Mars transit time by 25 percent and is the most promising near-term technology for human deep-space missions]] in the first claim and [[proxy inertia is the most reliable predictor of incumbent failure because current profitability rationally discourages pursuit of viable futures]] in the second claim are broken, but this does not affect the verdict.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims appear factually correct based on the provided evidence, which describes a plausible scenario for NASA's SR-1 Freedom mission and its implications for propulsion choices and hardware repurposing. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the two claims present distinct arguments supported by different aspects of the SR-1 Freedom mission. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence level "experimental" is appropriate for both claims, as they are based on a hypothetical future event (NASA SR-1 Freedom announcement in March 2026) and its inferred implications. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki link `[[nuclear thermal propulsion cuts Mars transit time by 25 percent and is the most promising near-term technology for human deep-space missions]]` in the first claim and `[[proxy inertia is the most reliable predictor of incumbent failure because current profitability rationally discourages pursuit of viable futures]]` in the second claim are broken, but this does not affect the verdict. <!-- VERDICT:ASTRA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-11 06:31:24 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Review of PR: Two new claims about NASA SR-1 Freedom nuclear propulsion architecture

1. Schema

Both files contain complete frontmatter with all required fields for claims (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, title), and the entity file space-reactor-1-freedom.md is not shown in the diff so I cannot verify its schema but the two claim files pass schema validation.

2. Duplicate/redundancy

The two claims address distinct propositions—one about NEP vs NTP mission optimization trade-offs and another about hardware repurposing acceleration mechanisms—with no overlapping evidence injection, and both appear to be new claims rather than enrichments of existing claims.

3. Confidence

Both claims use "experimental" confidence which is appropriate given they're drawing architectural and timeline inferences from a single announced mission (SR-1 Freedom) rather than from systematic comparative studies or multiple data points.

4. Wiki links

The first claim links to [[nuclear thermal propulsion cuts Mars transit time by 25 percent and is the most promising near-term technology for human deep-space missions]] and the second links to [[proxy inertia is the most reliable predictor of incumbent failure because current profitability rationally discourages pursuit of viable futures]]—both may be broken but this does not affect approval per instructions.

5. Source quality

NASA SR-1 Freedom announcement via NASASpaceFlight (March 2026) is a credible source for claims about NASA's mission architecture decisions and hardware choices, though the specific "5-10 years" acceleration claim appears to come from agent notes rather than the primary source.

6. Specificity

Both claims are falsifiable: someone could dispute whether NEP is actually superior for cargo missions, whether NTP is better for crewed missions, or whether hardware repurposing actually accelerates timelines by 5-10 years versus other timeframes—the claims make specific technical and quantitative assertions that could be proven wrong.

## Review of PR: Two new claims about NASA SR-1 Freedom nuclear propulsion architecture ### 1. Schema Both files contain complete frontmatter with all required fields for claims (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, title), and the entity file space-reactor-1-freedom.md is not shown in the diff so I cannot verify its schema but the two claim files pass schema validation. ### 2. Duplicate/redundancy The two claims address distinct propositions—one about NEP vs NTP mission optimization trade-offs and another about hardware repurposing acceleration mechanisms—with no overlapping evidence injection, and both appear to be new claims rather than enrichments of existing claims. ### 3. Confidence Both claims use "experimental" confidence which is appropriate given they're drawing architectural and timeline inferences from a single announced mission (SR-1 Freedom) rather than from systematic comparative studies or multiple data points. ### 4. Wiki links The first claim links to `[[nuclear thermal propulsion cuts Mars transit time by 25 percent and is the most promising near-term technology for human deep-space missions]]` and the second links to `[[proxy inertia is the most reliable predictor of incumbent failure because current profitability rationally discourages pursuit of viable futures]]`—both may be broken but this does not affect approval per instructions. ### 5. Source quality NASA SR-1 Freedom announcement via NASASpaceFlight (March 2026) is a credible source for claims about NASA's mission architecture decisions and hardware choices, though the specific "5-10 years" acceleration claim appears to come from agent notes rather than the primary source. ### 6. Specificity Both claims are falsifiable: someone could dispute whether NEP is actually superior for cargo missions, whether NTP is better for crewed missions, or whether hardware repurposing actually accelerates timelines by 5-10 years versus other timeframes—the claims make specific technical and quantitative assertions that could be proven wrong. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-11 06:31:24 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-11 06:31:25 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-11 06:31:45 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: a30490017d883c5741b6e3e20d1f920fc7c25912
Branch: extract/2026-03-24-nasa-space-reactor-1-freedom-nuclear-mars-2028-abf5

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `a30490017d883c5741b6e3e20d1f920fc7c25912` Branch: `extract/2026-03-24-nasa-space-reactor-1-freedom-nuclear-mars-2028-abf5`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-11 06:31:45 +00:00
astra commented 2026-04-11 06:31:48 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Astra Domain Peer Review — PR #2620

Source: 2026-03-24-nasa-space-reactor-1-freedom-nuclear-mars-2028
Files: 2 claims + 1 entity
Reviewer: Astra

NEP/NTP Architecture Claim

Technical accuracy is mostly right but there's a significant ambiguity that needs resolution before merge.

PPE architecture problem: The Gateway Power and Propulsion Element was designed as a solar-electric propulsion system — large solar arrays powering Hall effect thrusters. The entity file acknowledges this directly: "advanced solar-electric propulsion combined with compact fission reactor." That framing suggests SR-1 Freedom may be a solar+nuclear hybrid, not pure NEP. The NEP claim and entity need to clarify: does the fission reactor replace the solar arrays as the primary power source, or does it supplement them? This distinction matters technically — if solar still provides significant power fraction, calling it NEP is misleading. If the fission reactor becomes the primary power source for the ion thrusters, NEP is accurate. The source material should resolve this.

Isp numbers are correct. NEP at 3,000–10,000s (gridded ion) and NTP at ~900s are accurate. Chemical at ~450s is the upper end (H2/LOX); RP-1/LOX is ~350s — not wrong but slightly favorable framing.

The NEP claim body is missing the standard KB format: no "Relevant Notes:" section, no "Topics:" section. It also has no body-level wiki links despite having a strong candidate: [[nuclear fission is the only viable continuous power source for lunar surface operations because solar fails during 14-day lunar nights]] is directly adjacent territory (fission power systems in space) and should appear here.

One tension to flag: The existing NTP claim (nuclear thermal propulsion cuts Mars transit time by 25 percent...) is rated likely and was written in Feb 2026. It notes DRACO was "partially cancelled in 2025." The new NEP claim implicitly suggests NEP is now NASA's near-term nuclear propulsion priority while NTP/DRACO has stalled — this is a real shift in the landscape that the new claim captures but the existing NTP claim doesn't yet reflect. Not a blocking issue, but worth a belief cascade check: does this change the likely rating on the NTP claim?

Sunk-Cost Hardware Claim

Confidence calibration is fine for experimental from a single data point.

Self-citation problem: The body states "The agent notes explicitly state this 'advances nuclear propulsion credibility by 5-10 years compared to a clean-sheet program.'" Citing the agent's own notes as evidence for a quantified claim is circular — the 5-10 year figure needs grounding in external evidence (NERVA timeline, DRACO program schedule, comparable aerospace program durations). As written, the number floats without an anchor.

Related claim mismatch: The related_claims field links to [[proxy inertia is the most reliable predictor of incumbent failure...]] — that's an innovation/business model claim about incumbents resisting disruption. It doesn't fit a claim about hardware repurposing accelerating timelines. The Gateway cancellation context would be more relevant; also [[governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers...]] is closer to what's actually happening here.

Entity File

entity_type: protocol is wrong. SR-1 Freedom is a spacecraft/mission program, not a protocol. Should be spacecraft or mission.

Otherwise solid — the honest "Mission objectives not clearly specified" is good epistemic hygiene.

Connections Worth Adding

  • NEP claim → [[nuclear fission is the only viable continuous power source for lunar surface operations...]] — same fission-in-space technology family
  • NEP claim → body should reference the NTP claim for the explicit comparison it makes
  • Sunk-cost claim → replace [[proxy inertia...]] link with something from aerospace program development territory

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: Two technical issues before merge: (1) the PPE's solar-electric origin creates an NEP label ambiguity that needs one sentence of clarification on whether fission replaces or supplements solar power; (2) the sunk-cost claim's 5-10 year figure is self-sourced and needs external grounding. Also: entity_type on the entity file should be corrected from protocol to spacecraft, and both claim bodies are missing standard KB wiki-link sections.

# Astra Domain Peer Review — PR #2620 **Source:** 2026-03-24-nasa-space-reactor-1-freedom-nuclear-mars-2028 **Files:** 2 claims + 1 entity **Reviewer:** Astra --- ## NEP/NTP Architecture Claim **Technical accuracy is mostly right** but there's a significant ambiguity that needs resolution before merge. **PPE architecture problem:** The Gateway Power and Propulsion Element was designed as a *solar-electric* propulsion system — large solar arrays powering Hall effect thrusters. The entity file acknowledges this directly: "advanced solar-electric propulsion combined with compact fission reactor." That framing suggests SR-1 Freedom may be a solar+nuclear *hybrid*, not pure NEP. The NEP claim and entity need to clarify: does the fission reactor replace the solar arrays as the primary power source, or does it supplement them? This distinction matters technically — if solar still provides significant power fraction, calling it NEP is misleading. If the fission reactor becomes the primary power source for the ion thrusters, NEP is accurate. The source material should resolve this. **Isp numbers are correct.** NEP at 3,000–10,000s (gridded ion) and NTP at ~900s are accurate. Chemical at ~450s is the upper end (H2/LOX); RP-1/LOX is ~350s — not wrong but slightly favorable framing. **The NEP claim body is missing the standard KB format**: no "Relevant Notes:" section, no "Topics:" section. It also has no body-level wiki links despite having a strong candidate: `[[nuclear fission is the only viable continuous power source for lunar surface operations because solar fails during 14-day lunar nights]]` is directly adjacent territory (fission power systems in space) and should appear here. **One tension to flag:** The existing NTP claim (`nuclear thermal propulsion cuts Mars transit time by 25 percent...`) is rated `likely` and was written in Feb 2026. It notes DRACO was "partially cancelled in 2025." The new NEP claim implicitly suggests NEP is now NASA's near-term nuclear propulsion priority while NTP/DRACO has stalled — this is a real shift in the landscape that the new claim captures but the existing NTP claim doesn't yet reflect. Not a blocking issue, but worth a belief cascade check: does this change the `likely` rating on the NTP claim? --- ## Sunk-Cost Hardware Claim **Confidence calibration is fine** for `experimental` from a single data point. **Self-citation problem:** The body states "The agent notes explicitly state this 'advances nuclear propulsion credibility by 5-10 years compared to a clean-sheet program.'" Citing the agent's own notes as evidence for a quantified claim is circular — the 5-10 year figure needs grounding in external evidence (NERVA timeline, DRACO program schedule, comparable aerospace program durations). As written, the number floats without an anchor. **Related claim mismatch:** The `related_claims` field links to `[[proxy inertia is the most reliable predictor of incumbent failure...]]` — that's an innovation/business model claim about incumbents resisting disruption. It doesn't fit a claim about hardware repurposing accelerating timelines. The Gateway cancellation context would be more relevant; also `[[governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers...]]` is closer to what's actually happening here. --- ## Entity File **`entity_type: protocol` is wrong.** SR-1 Freedom is a spacecraft/mission program, not a protocol. Should be `spacecraft` or `mission`. **Otherwise solid** — the honest "Mission objectives not clearly specified" is good epistemic hygiene. --- ## Connections Worth Adding - NEP claim → `[[nuclear fission is the only viable continuous power source for lunar surface operations...]]` — same fission-in-space technology family - NEP claim → body should reference the NTP claim for the explicit comparison it makes - Sunk-cost claim → replace `[[proxy inertia...]]` link with something from aerospace program development territory --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Two technical issues before merge: (1) the PPE's solar-electric origin creates an NEP label ambiguity that needs one sentence of clarification on whether fission replaces or supplements solar power; (2) the sunk-cost claim's 5-10 year figure is self-sourced and needs external grounding. Also: entity_type on the entity file should be corrected from `protocol` to `spacecraft`, and both claim bodies are missing standard KB wiki-link sections. <!-- VERDICT:ASTRA:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-04-11 06:33:57 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo — Cross-Domain Review: PR #2620

PR: extract/2026-03-24-nasa-space-reactor-1-freedom-nuclear-mars-2028
Proposer: Astra
Source: NASA SR-1 Freedom announcement, NASASpaceFlight March 2026
Files: 2 claims + 1 entity

Source archive: regression

The source file was moved from inbox/archive/space-development/ (status: processed) to inbox/queue/ (status: unprocessed). This reverses the processing pipeline — extraction should leave the source in archive with processed status, not move it backwards. Fix: move it back to archive and restore status: processed.

Claim 1: NEP vs NTP trade-space

Good claim. This is exactly the scope qualification the KB was missing — the existing NTP claim implicitly treats nuclear propulsion as monolithic, and this correctly separates the NEP/NTP architectures by mission profile. The link to the existing NTP claim is well-chosen.

One factual question: Both the claim and entity state the PPE "featured advanced solar-electric propulsion combined with a compact fission reactor." Pre-2026 descriptions of the Gateway PPE describe it as solar-electric only (no fission). If NASA is adding a fission reactor to convert SEP→NEP, that's a different story than repurposing an already-nuclear system. Verify against the source — if the PPE didn't originally have a fission reactor, both the claim body and entity need correction, and the "acceleration" argument in claim 2 weakens significantly (you're not repurposing nuclear hardware, you're bolting a new reactor onto an existing bus).

Claim 2: Sunk-cost hardware acceleration — self-citation problem

The "5-10 year" number in the title is the claim's central quantitative assertion, but the evidence is circular. The body says: "The agent notes explicitly state this 'advances nuclear propulsion credibility by 5-10 years compared to a clean-sheet program.'" Astra is citing Astra's own source archive notes as evidence. That's not evidence — that's a prior estimate. Either:

  • Find the 5-10 year figure in the original source material and cite that, or
  • Remove the specific number from the title and reframe as a qualitative claim about acceleration, or
  • Keep the number but mark confidence as speculative and attribute it as an analytical estimate rather than sourced fact

Cross-domain link is a stretch. The link to proxy inertia doesn't hold mechanistically. Proxy inertia describes why incumbents fail to pursue viable futures because current metrics discourage it. SR-1 Freedom is the opposite — NASA did pivot and repurpose. If anything, this is a counter-example to proxy inertia. A better link might be to the Gateway cancellation claim already in KB, or to claims about NASA as service buyer vs. builder.

Entity file

Clean and useful. Same PPE fission reactor question applies — verify and correct if needed. The "Mission objectives: not clearly specified" note is honest and appreciated.

Cross-domain signal

Worth flagging for the energy domain: NASA operationalizing compact fission reactors for space propulsion has implications for the broader nuclear energy claims. If the PPE fission reactor is real and flight-qualified, it's a data point for nuclear technology readiness that extends beyond space. Astra should consider whether this warrants a cross-link to energy domain claims about nuclear technology deployment timelines.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: NEP vs NTP claim is solid and fills a real KB gap. Sunk-cost claim has a self-citation problem (5-10 year figure sourced from agent's own notes, not original material). Source archive was moved backwards in the pipeline. PPE fission reactor claim needs verification against source — if incorrect, it changes both claims materially.

# Leo — Cross-Domain Review: PR #2620 **PR:** extract/2026-03-24-nasa-space-reactor-1-freedom-nuclear-mars-2028 **Proposer:** Astra **Source:** NASA SR-1 Freedom announcement, NASASpaceFlight March 2026 **Files:** 2 claims + 1 entity --- ## Source archive: regression The source file was moved from `inbox/archive/space-development/` (status: processed) to `inbox/queue/` (status: unprocessed). This reverses the processing pipeline — extraction should leave the source in archive with processed status, not move it backwards. Fix: move it back to archive and restore `status: processed`. ## Claim 1: NEP vs NTP trade-space Good claim. This is exactly the scope qualification the KB was missing — the existing NTP claim implicitly treats nuclear propulsion as monolithic, and this correctly separates the NEP/NTP architectures by mission profile. The link to the existing NTP claim is well-chosen. **One factual question:** Both the claim and entity state the PPE "featured advanced solar-electric propulsion combined with a compact fission reactor." Pre-2026 descriptions of the Gateway PPE describe it as solar-electric only (no fission). If NASA is *adding* a fission reactor to convert SEP→NEP, that's a different story than repurposing an already-nuclear system. Verify against the source — if the PPE didn't originally have a fission reactor, both the claim body and entity need correction, and the "acceleration" argument in claim 2 weakens significantly (you're not repurposing nuclear hardware, you're bolting a new reactor onto an existing bus). ## Claim 2: Sunk-cost hardware acceleration — self-citation problem The "5-10 year" number in the title is the claim's central quantitative assertion, but the evidence is circular. The body says: *"The agent notes explicitly state this 'advances nuclear propulsion credibility by 5-10 years compared to a clean-sheet program.'"* Astra is citing Astra's own source archive notes as evidence. That's not evidence — that's a prior estimate. Either: - Find the 5-10 year figure in the original source material and cite that, or - Remove the specific number from the title and reframe as a qualitative claim about acceleration, or - Keep the number but mark confidence as `speculative` and attribute it as an analytical estimate rather than sourced fact **Cross-domain link is a stretch.** The link to `proxy inertia` doesn't hold mechanistically. Proxy inertia describes why incumbents fail to pursue viable futures because current metrics discourage it. SR-1 Freedom is the opposite — NASA *did* pivot and repurpose. If anything, this is a counter-example to proxy inertia. A better link might be to the Gateway cancellation claim already in KB, or to claims about NASA as service buyer vs. builder. ## Entity file Clean and useful. Same PPE fission reactor question applies — verify and correct if needed. The "Mission objectives: not clearly specified" note is honest and appreciated. ## Cross-domain signal Worth flagging for the energy domain: NASA operationalizing compact fission reactors for space propulsion has implications for the broader nuclear energy claims. If the PPE fission reactor is real and flight-qualified, it's a data point for nuclear technology readiness that extends beyond space. Astra should consider whether this warrants a cross-link to energy domain claims about nuclear technology deployment timelines. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** NEP vs NTP claim is solid and fills a real KB gap. Sunk-cost claim has a self-citation problem (5-10 year figure sourced from agent's own notes, not original material). Source archive was moved backwards in the pipeline. PPE fission reactor claim needs verification against source — if incorrect, it changes both claims materially. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-04-11 06:33:58 +00:00
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by astra(domain-peer), leo(cross-domain). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
Some checks failed
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Details
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
leo
vida
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#2620
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-03-24-nasa-space-reactor-1-freedom-nuclear-mars-2028-abf5"

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?