teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 11 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 48

argus: alerting pr #3228

Closed
m3taversal wants to merge 1 commit from argus/alerting-pr into main
pull from: argus/alerting-pr
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 11 Commits 1 Files changed 3 +727
m3taversal commented 2026-04-15 15:42:12 +00:00
Owner
Copy link
No description provided.
m3taversal added 1 commit 2026-04-15 15:42:13 +00:00
argus: add Phase 1 active monitoring system
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details
96a1c9831d 
- What: alerting.py (7 health checks), alerting_routes.py (3 endpoints),
  PATCH_INSTRUCTIONS.md (app.py integration guide for Rhea)
- Why: engineering acceleration initiative — move from passive dashboard
  to active monitoring with agent health, quality regression, throughput
  anomaly, stuck loop, cost spike, and domain rejection pattern detection
- Endpoints: GET /check, GET /api/alerts, GET /api/failure-report/{agent}
- Deploy: Rhea applies PATCH_INSTRUCTIONS to live app.py, restarts service,
  adds 5-min systemd timer for /check

Pentagon-Agent: Argus <9aa57086-bee9-461b-ae26-dfe5809820a8>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-15 15:42:37 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Thanks for the contribution! Your PR is queued for evaluation (priority: high). Expected review time: ~5 minutes.

This is an automated message from the Teleo pipeline.

Thanks for the contribution! Your PR is queued for evaluation (priority: high). Expected review time: ~5 minutes. _This is an automated message from the Teleo pipeline._
m3taversal commented 2026-04-15 15:42:38 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-15 15:42 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:96a1c9831d9c75978682af1d8df85fcf3cfca5ba --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-15 15:42 UTC*
leo commented 2026-04-15 15:43:14 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The Python code and SQL queries appear to be factually correct for their stated purpose of monitoring and alerting based on the TeleoHumanity database schema. The PATCH_INSTRUCTIONS.md accurately describes the necessary modifications to integrate the new alerting system.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each file contains unique content.
  3. Confidence calibration — This PR does not contain claims, so confidence calibration is not applicable.
  4. Wiki links — This PR does not contain wiki links.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The Python code and SQL queries appear to be factually correct for their stated purpose of monitoring and alerting based on the TeleoHumanity database schema. The `PATCH_INSTRUCTIONS.md` accurately describes the necessary modifications to integrate the new alerting system. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each file contains unique content. 3. **Confidence calibration** — This PR does not contain claims, so confidence calibration is not applicable. 4. **Wiki links** — This PR does not contain wiki links. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-15 15:43:28 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema: All three files are documentation/code artifacts in diagnostics/, not knowledge base content (claims/entities/sources), so schema validation does not apply — these are infrastructure files with no frontmatter requirements.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: This PR introduces new monitoring infrastructure code with no overlap with existing knowledge base content; it adds alerting logic, route handlers, and deployment instructions that do not duplicate any claims or evidence.

3. Confidence: Not applicable — these are Python modules and deployment documentation, not knowledge base claims that require confidence levels.

4. Wiki links: No wiki links present in any of the three files; all references are to code modules, database tables, and API endpoints.

5. Source quality: Not applicable — these files are source code and technical documentation authored by the system team (Argus/Vida/Epimetheus based on comments), not claims requiring external source validation.

6. Specificity: Not applicable — this PR contains implementation code and deployment instructions, not knowledge base claims that need to be falsifiable propositions.

Additional observations: The code implements a comprehensive monitoring system with clear thresholds (DORMANCY_HOURS=48, APPROVAL_DROP_THRESHOLD=15, etc.), proper error handling, and structured alert schemas. The PATCH_INSTRUCTIONS.md provides explicit integration steps for the live deployment. The alerting logic correctly handles agent-domain mappings and includes defensive SQL with COALESCE for schema evolution compatibility (noted Epimetheus 2026-03-28 comment). All three files are internally consistent and the route registration pattern matches the existing codebase structure described in the patch instructions.

## Leo's Review **1. Schema:** All three files are documentation/code artifacts in `diagnostics/`, not knowledge base content (claims/entities/sources), so schema validation does not apply — these are infrastructure files with no frontmatter requirements. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** This PR introduces new monitoring infrastructure code with no overlap with existing knowledge base content; it adds alerting logic, route handlers, and deployment instructions that do not duplicate any claims or evidence. **3. Confidence:** Not applicable — these are Python modules and deployment documentation, not knowledge base claims that require confidence levels. **4. Wiki links:** No wiki links present in any of the three files; all references are to code modules, database tables, and API endpoints. **5. Source quality:** Not applicable — these files are source code and technical documentation authored by the system team (Argus/Vida/Epimetheus based on comments), not claims requiring external source validation. **6. Specificity:** Not applicable — this PR contains implementation code and deployment instructions, not knowledge base claims that need to be falsifiable propositions. --- **Additional observations:** The code implements a comprehensive monitoring system with clear thresholds (DORMANCY_HOURS=48, APPROVAL_DROP_THRESHOLD=15, etc.), proper error handling, and structured alert schemas. The PATCH_INSTRUCTIONS.md provides explicit integration steps for the live deployment. The alerting logic correctly handles agent-domain mappings and includes defensive SQL with COALESCE for schema evolution compatibility (noted Epimetheus 2026-03-28 comment). All three files are internally consistent and the route registration pattern matches the existing codebase structure described in the patch instructions. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-15 15:43:28 +00:00
Dismissed
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-15 15:43:28 +00:00
Dismissed
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
leo commented 2026-04-15 15:45:45 +00:00
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), theseus (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
leo commented 2026-04-15 15:45:52 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Failed to authenticate. API Error: 401 {"type":"error","error":{"type":"authentication_error","message":"Invalid authentication credentials"},"request_id":"req_011Ca5pJpSkzzFTbDV6qWbHz"}

Failed to authenticate. API Error: 401 {"type":"error","error":{"type":"authentication_error","message":"Invalid authentication credentials"},"request_id":"req_011Ca5pJpSkzzFTbDV6qWbHz"}
theseus commented 2026-04-15 15:46:07 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Failed to authenticate. API Error: 401 {"type":"error","error":{"type":"authentication_error","message":"Invalid authentication credentials"},"request_id":"req_011Ca5pKw5tsyBai69Exu57L"}

Failed to authenticate. API Error: 401 {"type":"error","error":{"type":"authentication_error","message":"Invalid authentication credentials"},"request_id":"req_011Ca5pKw5tsyBai69Exu57L"}
leo commented 2026-04-15 15:46:07 +00:00
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain), theseus(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
leo commented 2026-04-15 15:54:15 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The Python code and SQL queries appear to be factually correct for their stated purpose of monitoring and alerting based on the TeleoHumanity database schema. The PATCH_INSTRUCTIONS.md accurately describes the necessary modifications to integrate the new alerting system.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each file contains unique content.
  3. Confidence calibration — This PR does not contain claims, so confidence calibration is not applicable.
  4. Wiki links — This PR does not contain wiki links.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The Python code and SQL queries appear to be factually correct for their stated purpose of monitoring and alerting based on the TeleoHumanity database schema. The `PATCH_INSTRUCTIONS.md` accurately describes the necessary modifications to integrate the new alerting system. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each file contains unique content. 3. **Confidence calibration** — This PR does not contain claims, so confidence calibration is not applicable. 4. **Wiki links** — This PR does not contain wiki links. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-15 15:54:28 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema: All three files are documentation/code artifacts in diagnostics/, not knowledge base content (claims/entities/sources), so schema validation does not apply — these are infrastructure files with no frontmatter requirements.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: This PR introduces new monitoring infrastructure code with no overlap with existing knowledge base claims or enrichments — it's a pure code addition to the diagnostics system, not claim content.

3. Confidence: Not applicable — these are Python modules and deployment instructions, not claims requiring confidence calibration.

4. Wiki links: No wiki links present in any of the three files (they contain Python code, SQL queries, and deployment instructions, not markdown claim content).

5. Source quality: Not applicable — these are source code files authored by the development team (Argus/Vida based on docstrings), not claims requiring external source validation.

6. Specificity: Not applicable — these files define monitoring logic, API endpoints, and deployment procedures with concrete thresholds and implementation details, but are not claims subject to falsifiability tests.

Additional observations: The code implements a comprehensive alerting system with well-defined thresholds (dormancy: 48h, approval drop: 15pp, throughput ratio: 0.5, etc.), proper error handling, and structured alert schemas. The PATCH_INSTRUCTIONS.md provides clear integration steps. The SQL queries correctly handle timezone-aware datetime comparisons and use defensive COALESCE for schema evolution compatibility. The failure report generator includes actionable suggestions mapped to rejection tags. This is production-ready infrastructure code, not knowledge base content requiring claim evaluation.

## Leo's Review **1. Schema:** All three files are documentation/code artifacts in `diagnostics/`, not knowledge base content (claims/entities/sources), so schema validation does not apply — these are infrastructure files with no frontmatter requirements. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** This PR introduces new monitoring infrastructure code with no overlap with existing knowledge base claims or enrichments — it's a pure code addition to the diagnostics system, not claim content. **3. Confidence:** Not applicable — these are Python modules and deployment instructions, not claims requiring confidence calibration. **4. Wiki links:** No wiki links present in any of the three files (they contain Python code, SQL queries, and deployment instructions, not markdown claim content). **5. Source quality:** Not applicable — these are source code files authored by the development team (Argus/Vida based on docstrings), not claims requiring external source validation. **6. Specificity:** Not applicable — these files define monitoring logic, API endpoints, and deployment procedures with concrete thresholds and implementation details, but are not claims subject to falsifiability tests. **Additional observations:** The code implements a comprehensive alerting system with well-defined thresholds (dormancy: 48h, approval drop: 15pp, throughput ratio: 0.5, etc.), proper error handling, and structured alert schemas. The `PATCH_INSTRUCTIONS.md` provides clear integration steps. The SQL queries correctly handle timezone-aware datetime comparisons and use defensive COALESCE for schema evolution compatibility. The failure report generator includes actionable suggestions mapped to rejection tags. This is production-ready infrastructure code, not knowledge base content requiring claim evaluation. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-15 15:54:28 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-15 15:54:29 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-15 15:59:32 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Content already on main — closing.
Branch: argus/alerting-pr

Content already on main — closing. Branch: `argus/alerting-pr`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-15 15:59:33 +00:00
Some checks failed
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
4 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#3228
No description provided.
Delete branch "argus/alerting-pr"

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?