PR #8525
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8524
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8522
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8521
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8520
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8519
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8499
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=1
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8492
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=3
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8489
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8481
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The author says the blocking spec PR is merged and the thread is now unblocked, so the ball is back in the reviewer’s court to continue review or close it out.)
route: approver
PR #8480
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The reviewer raised a concern and asked whether there was a real-world issue motivating the change; the author replied and acknowledged the tradeoff, so the thread is now waiting on reviewer judgment/response.)
route: maintainer
PR #8473
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=None
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
route: approver
PR #8468
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=11
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86ImrO2 -> author (The approver is still requesting a code change and test update, so the PR author needs to act.)
route: author
PR #8467
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=12
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for motivation and the author answered directly, so the ball is back in the reviewer’s court to react or continue review.)
route: approver
PR #8464
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=5
threads: author=10 reviewer=0 external=0 none=2 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3mmm -> author (The latest comment is an unresolved reviewer question/concern ('???') on the code, so the author needs to clarify or update the implementation.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3oqd -> author (The approver left a code suggestion on `ResourceBuilder addEntity(Entity e)`, so the PR author needs to apply or respond to the requested change.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3o9g -> author (An approver asked to remove the sugar at this line, so the PR author needs to make that code change.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3qPO -> author (The approver asks the author to justify or change the memoization strategy, so the next move is on the PR author to respond or update the code.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3qb_ -> author (The only comment is an approver’s confused question (“???”), so the thread is waiting on the PR author to clarify or update the code.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3thx -> none (The approver says the visibility modifier is not needed because static methods on public interfaces are already public, so this is informational and does not require follow-up.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3uKP -> author (The reviewer requested code and Javadoc changes (“Change all these to `set<Property>`” and clarify whether the behavior is set vs merge), so the PR author needs to update the implementation.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3wYO -> author (A reviewer left an unresolved code suggestion and the thread is still open, so the PR author needs to apply or respond to the requested change.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86I3wgW -> author (An approver left a code suggestion on the thread, so the next step is for the PR author to apply or respond to it.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86KXDhc -> author (The approver is asking the author to justify the new `EntityDetector` SPI versus reusing `ResourceProvider`, so the next step is for the author to პასუხ answer or adjust the design.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86KXHEj -> author (The approver gave implementation guidance about where the toggle flag should live, which implies the PR author needs to update the code accordingly.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86KXMcg -> none (The reviewer is mainly explaining how declarative config SPIs work and saying ResourceFactory likely needs no change, with no explicit request for follow-up or code changes in this thread.)
route: author
PR #8450
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The author only noted they restored the branch to its previous state; no follow-up request or unresolved question is present.)
route: maintainer
PR #8446
facts: approved=True conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=6
threads: author=2 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86KBUh4 -> author (The approver asked a direct question about the implementation (“Why two methods?”), so the next step is for the PR author to explain or adjust the code.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86KBWSq -> author (The approver left a concrete nit/suggestion to change the return construction in `GrpcExporter.java`, so the next step is for the author to apply or ignore that requested edit.)
route: author
PR #8428
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=10
threads: author=2 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86FNGwS -> author (A reviewer asked the author why that number was chosen, so the next action is for the author to explain or adjust the implementation.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86JKWNr -> author (The approver asked a direct question about whether the test could use `new FakeHttpResponse(500, "Internal Server Error", null)`, so the author needs to respond or adjust the test.)
route: author
PR #8407
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=35
threads: author=1 reviewer=2 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMfQS -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for justification comments, and the author responded that they added them in a follow-up commit; the thread is now back in reviewer court to verify/close.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86CMnfF -> reviewer (The author answered the reviewer’s question about the `Object` change, so the ball is back in the reviewer/approver’s court to accept the explanation or continue review.)
llm: pr-conversation -> author (A reviewer asked the author whether `@CompileStatic` could solve it and whether reflection is necessary, so the thread is waiting on the author to respond or adjust the implementation.)
route: author
PR #8364
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=39
threads: author=2 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhQsA -> author (The approver requested a code comment and a change to avoid the extra allocation by using a different collision strategy, so the PR author needs to implement the follow-up.)
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g86BhVsZ -> author (The approver is asking for code changes to account for collisions from `resource`, `scope`, and `additionalAttributes`, so the PR author needs to implement or update the logic.)
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The author says the PR is parked pending #8346, so the thread is currently blocked on an external dependency before the author can rebase/apply the requested changes.)
route: author
PR #8349
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=0
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The latest comment is from the author and is pushing back on a reviewer concern about `sampledThread` being null, asking for clarification/evidence rather than making a fix; the reviewer needs to जवाब/confirm.)
route: approver
PR #8240
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=61
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The last comment is from the author saying they still need to investigate why the benchmark metrics are zero and plan to try to figure it out, so the thread is waiting on the author.)
route: author
PR #8197
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=68
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=1 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> external (The latest author reply links the open spec discussion, and the reviewer already said to keep this as a reference implementation while that discussion happens, so the thread is now blocked on the external spec process.)
route: external
PR #8164
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=34
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: PRRT_kwDOCkv3g85z-n0C -> author (A reviewer requested a code change to use the new `pretty_print/development_java` config naming, and the latest reply only agreed with the convention; the author still needs to implement it.)
route: author
PR #8076
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=6
threads: author=1 reviewer=0 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> author (The latest comment is from the author, saying they’ll test and validate the implementation; the reviewer has already answered the question and is waiting on that follow-up.)
route: author
PR #7763
facts: approved=False conflicts=yes days_since_last_activity=236
threads: author=0 reviewer=1 external=0 none=0 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> reviewer (The reviewer asked for justification, and the author answered with their reasoning; the thread is now back on the reviewer to decide whether that explanation is sufficient.)
route: approver
PR #7741
facts: approved=False conflicts=no days_since_last_activity=81
threads: author=0 reviewer=0 external=0 none=1 unclear=0
llm: pr-conversation -> none (The latest comment is an informational suggestion with a reference link and no explicit request for a change; no one is clearly required to act next.)
route: approver
Note
Open PRs are grouped by deterministic routing over per-thread LLM classifications. CI, conflicts, and activity age are computed deterministically and are shown as facts, not used as standalone routing reasons.
Waiting on maintainer (approved)
Waiting on approvers
Waiting on authors
Waiting on external
Workflow failure tracking issues
Diagnostics
Generated 2026-06-23 11:09 UTC