Scoped review invitations and module stewardship

[huangruiteng]

Scoped review and module stewardship

Governance, review routing and merge-gate changes were merged in
#4071. Scope confirmations
belong in this issue; code and workflow review belongs on that PR.

Thank you for the implementation, fixes and cross-author reviews that keep LoopX moving. We are making the first-review routes clearer so contributors can participate in technical decisions as well as implementation.

• @now-ing: a repository Write invitation has been sent. Would you like to take an initial review scope in post-writeback hooks or periodic reporting? Please choose the cohesive scope you prefer; access acceptance and subsystem appointment are separate steps.
• @Duang777: I am designating you as the first-review contact for Chat/runtime session lifecycle: resume/submit/close, request idempotency, focused regression coverage and follow-up maintenance. Shared goal/quota/lease policy is outside this scope. Please tell us if you want to narrow or pause this responsibility; this does not require fixed availability or grant new repository permissions.
• @wchwawa: would you coordinate first implementation review for shared-goal-authority qualification, including writer/cursor recovery evidence? Canonical-authority promotion and provider activation remain separate maintainer decisions.
• @liubf21: would you coordinate Usage and host-usage ingestion review, especially historical-data compatibility and measurement correctness?
• @hhyykk and @yuefengw: would you take paired review scopes in TypeScript transaction cutovers and task-lease/scheduler boundaries respectively?
• @wujc12: I am designating you as the first-review contact for DSH integration: the plugin, installation and host-integration regressions. Shared replan and lifecycle contracts remain separately reviewed. Please let us know your availability or any scope adjustment.
• @songoow: would you take a bounded review scope in reliability diagnostics? Privacy/export decisions remain separately reviewed.
• @steven-kid: the existing Lark Integration subsystem appointment remains in place; Lark PRs should continue to reach you for the first substantive review.

How this works

1. Please reply with your accepted scope, any narrower boundary, and realistic availability. Declining or pausing is completely fine. No employment, on-call duty or response-time SLA is implied.
2. Start with a real PR by another author. Record the exact head, the invariant you checked, validation actually performed, and any unresolved issue. Review comments are useful even before Write access; only eligible approvals satisfy GitHub's merge rules.
3. Authors should get the opportunity to address findings. If a maintainer takes over a repair, preserve attribution and explain the handoff.
4. Your own PRs still need another reviewer. Repository Write is not admin/bypass, release authority or blanket ownership of shared control-plane semantics.
5. After roughly four weeks of participation or three to five completed cross-author review cycles, we can confirm or adjust the scope in governance. Existing substantive reviews count; there is no PR-volume target or requirement to manufacture findings.

The lead maintainer remains the fallback for availability and cross-module decisions. Please keep scope confirmations here so they are easy to find; implementation discussion stays on the relevant PR.

[huangruiteng]

DSH review routing update: @wujc12 is the first-review contact for the DSH plugin, installation and host-integration regressions. This replaces the earlier proposed DSH assignment; other contributors remain welcome to contribute and review. Shared lifecycle/replan changes still need the relevant maintainer review. The governance change is in #4071, and scope/availability feedback can stay here.

[wchwawa]

@huangruiteng Accepted, with the boundary below.

Scope I take: first implementation review for shared-goal-authority qualification: the stage ladder and its evidence rows, transaction-bound capture and drain, writer/cursor recovery, bounded qualification and rollback, and the provider conformance evidence that feeds them (file, PostgreSQL, NoKV). For each review I will record the exact head, the invariant checked, the validation actually run, and anything left unresolved.

Outside the scope: canonical-authority promotion, provider selection or activation, normative RFC changes, and anything that changes the authority source; those stay with the lead maintainer. On NoKV-provider PRs I review the LoopX-side qualification evidence only; NoKV-side decisions keep their own review in NoKV-Lab/NoKV, and the same LoopX acceptance gate applies to NoKV changes as to any other provider.

Availability: a few hours per week, usually a first substantive review within two working days of a request; no SLA implied, and I will say so on the PR when I cannot take one.

I will start with a cross-author PR in this scope, #4053, since it builds directly on the recovery boundaries of #3985.

[Duang777]

@huangruiteng Accepted. I can serve as the first-review contact for Chat/runtime session lifecycle, covering resume, submit, close, request idempotency, focused regression coverage, and follow-up maintenance, with shared goal/quota/lease policy staying out of scope. My availability is best-effort without a fixed SLA; I will say on the PR when I need to pause or cannot take a review.

[songoow]

@huangruiteng Accepted. I can take a bounded first implementation review scope in reliability diagnostics: observer-envelope and ledger integrity, receipt/projection consistency, readback and time-evaluation correctness, and focused regressions that prove the diagnostics path remains read-only and does not influence scheduler inputs.

Privacy/export policy, retention/deletion authorization, provider activation, and shared Goal/quota/lease or lifecycle semantics remain separate maintainer reviews. DSH plugin, installation and host-integration reviews should continue through @wujc12; I will focus on the diagnostics contract at that boundary.

Availability is best-effort, with no fixed response-time SLA. I will state on the PR when I cannot take a review or need to pause. For cross-author reviews I will record the exact head, invariants checked, validation actually run, and unresolved findings. My own PRs, including #3975, still require another reviewer; author self-checks are not independent approval.