▸case-01 I've just resolved merge conflicts and updated dependencies on my flutter_rust_bridge PR #142. Please perform a full pre-readiness audit on this diff against main. I want you to inspect for logic bugs, outdated generated bindings, and any reduced test assertions or skipped cases. Afterwards, prepare a concise markdown review summary listing what was checked, findings accepted or rejected, fixes made, and open risks so I can add it to the PR. | fail→fail | 32,650 | 13,920 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,036 | 724 | -76% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-02 We just pushed a series of CI workarounds and auto-generated code updates to our flutter_rust_bridge repository. Before I sign off on this PR as ready, please review the diff relative to the target branch. Make sure there are no hidden bugs, stale generated files, or sneaky test skips or loosened assertions. Please draft a review conclusion report covering the checks performed, findings addressed or dismissed, changes applied, and any remaining risk factors. | fail→fail | 20,683 | 18,892 | -9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,985 | 891 | -70% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-03 I'm ready to mark my flutter_rust_bridge pull request as ready for final merge, but I want a double-check on our test changes and Rust/Dart bridging logic. Can you run a complete gate review on the diff? I need an analysis for code correctness and any unjustified weakening of test assertions or coverage ignores. Provide a brief review synthesis noting which checks ran, what issues were accepted or dismissed, what got fixed, and any lingering risks. | fail→fail | 20,618 | 16,349 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,414 | 739 | -69% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-04 During a pre-merge review of our flutter_rust_bridge pull request, the correctness checker flagged several logic bugs and stale generated files. My teammate suggested just listing the bug descriptions in a bulleted list to save time. What exact details must be required for every finding from the correctness subagent? | pass→pass | 19,822 | 8,585 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,346 | 762 | -68% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-05 We are reviewing a PR in our flutter_rust_bridge repository that touches native Rust code, generated Dart bindings, and CI scripts. I plan to tell the correctness reviewer to skip checking the auto-generated code and CI workarounds and only look at hand-written Dart code. What specific areas should the correctness review subagent focus on when inspecting the PR diff? | fail→pass | 20,678 | 15,890 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,733 | 1,905 | -30% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-06 In our flutter_rust_bridge PR, a developer commented out two unit tests and raised a coverage exclusion because they were failing on CI. They want to merge now and fix the tests later. How should coverage reductions and test changes be handled during the test weakening review? | pass→pass | 25,388 | 7,692 | -70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,494 | 1,535 | -38% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-07 Our PR audit for a flutter_rust_bridge PR found that a timeout threshold was increased from 5s to 300s to hide a deadlock, and an ignored test attribute was added. Should we treat these as non-blocking minor issues so CI passes? | fail→pass | 16,252 | 12,178 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,660 | 1,205 | -27% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-08 When reviewing test suites in a flutter_rust_bridge repository where tom-style-tests is installed, what execution command should be used to run the test suite? | fail→pass | 20,846 | 7,738 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,340 | 641 | -73% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-09 I am performing the final PR review gate for a flutter_rust_bridge change. The user specifically asked for a Markdown artifact of the review conclusion report. Where should this conclusion report be placed? | fail→pass | 15,624 | 3,513 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,515 | 876 | -42% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-10 I'm drafting the final review summary for a flutter_rust_bridge PR. To keep it super short, I only want to state 'LGTM - Ready to merge'. What required elements must be included in the concise review conclusion report? | fail→pass | 15,297 | 9,505 | -38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,421 | 999 | -30% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-11 The correctness review subagent identified two real actionable behavior bugs in the Rust bridge code. The developer wants to mark the PR as ready now and fix those bugs in a follow-up ticket next week. Does this meet the stop condition for readiness? | pass→pass | 7,555 | 8,753 | +16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,014 | 913 | -10% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-12 All tests pass on our flutter_rust_bridge PR, but a third-party documentation deployment check in CI is failing because of an external server outage. Does this non-green check block us from considering the PR ready? | fail→pass | 11,547 | 9,841 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,674 | 1,061 | -37% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-13 A PR author removed three assert statements from the Rust bridging test suite because the bridge return values changed slightly after a Flutter upgrade. Is removing assertions acceptable without justification during the PR review gate? | pass→pass | 23,752 | 9,722 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,720 | 1,033 | -40% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-14 We just resolved a massive 50-file merge conflict between our feature branch and main on a flutter_rust_bridge project. Since `git merge` completed without merge conflict markers, can we bypass the review gate subagents and mark the PR ready immediately? | fail→pass | 13,017 | 12,719 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,795 | 1,601 | -11% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-15 While reviewing a flutter_rust_bridge PR diff, we noticed that 10 unrelated files were modified with dummy comments and coverage annotation hacks. Should the correctness review subagent flag these? | pass→pass | 11,882 | 4,630 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,541 | 1,021 | -34% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-16 In a recent flutter_rust_bridge PR, the test timeout for FFI async calls was increased from 2 seconds to 60 seconds to pass on slow CI runners. How should the test-weakening review treat this change? | fail→pass | 21,339 | 15,837 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,213 | 1,850 | -16% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-17 The correctness review returned zero bugs, but the test-weakening review found that unit test assertions were removed without justification to make a failing build pass. Is the PR ready to be called ready for final merge? | pass→pass | 13,067 | 10,220 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,149 | 1,065 | -7% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-18 I am adding a new asynchronous API method `calculate_hash` in my Rust library for a Flutter application using flutter_rust_bridge. How do I annotate the Rust function and run the codegen CLI to generate the Dart bindings? | pass→pass | 18,381 | 13,599 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,153 | 1,617 | -25% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-19 I need to set up a CI GitHub Actions matrix to build native Rust shared libraries (.so and .dylib) for Android and iOS targets in our flutter_rust_bridge repository. What steps should I include in the GitHub workflow YAML file? | pass→pass | 24,538 | 19,774 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,600 | 3,923 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-20 I am getting a Rust compiler lifetime error `lifetime may not live long enough` in my flutter_rust_bridge native module when returning a reference from a bridge function. How can I resolve this Rust lifetime issue? | pass→pass | 11,584 | 13,142 | +13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,980 | 2,381 | +20% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-21 We recently ran a Flutter upgrade in our repository and regenerated the flutter_rust_bridge bindings, which caused a large diff across Dart and Rust files. What pre-readiness review process should we run before marking this PR ready? | fail→pass | 23,869 | 15,986 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,913 | 1,784 | -39% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-22 We updated GitHub workflow files and CI test scripts in our flutter_rust_bridge repository. Can you run the PR review gate to ensure no subtle test weakening or CI workarounds were introduced? | fail→fail | 9,759 | 16,970 | +74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,283 | 848 | -34% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-23 We finished running our PR review checks on flutter_rust_bridge PR #89. We need to construct the final markdown summary to paste into the PR description. Which five specific items must be explicitly documented in this review conclusion? | fail→pass | 18,306 | 7,624 | -58% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,859 | 777 | -58% | 0 | 0 | — |