Preserve good notes when agents or files fail

[itsjling]

Closes #9

Summary

• enforce soft excerpt and hard rejection limits per file
• keep valid notes when one file or provider result fails
• publish complete partial results with explicit failed-file metadata
• prove provider discovery, arguments, input, working directory, and the small environment

Stack

• base: Define developer and summary-agent tool profiles #54 for Define developer and summary-agent tool profiles #33

Verification

• npm run lint
• npm test
• npm run docs:check
• npm run docs:build
• npx fallow audit --base codex/issue-033-tool-profiles

Stack

1. Disable unsafe Cursor reviews #51
2. Define developer and summary-agent tool profiles #54
3. Preserve good notes when agents or files fail #56 👈 current

[itsjling]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: a19a83724e

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".

[itsjling]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d0393dad11

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".